What do you all think of the Tea Party?
As far as I can see, the liberals in the Democrat Party, and the spineless progressives in the Republican Party are leading this country down the economic road to oblivion. That being said, I am open to a new party that more closely matches my philosophy and desires, and will promote policies that will serve society rather than enslave it.
While I am not a member of the Tea Party movement, I sympathize with their intent, at least with what I perceive as their intent: that being smaller, less intrusive government, and a return to the founder's original intentions in this regard. However, my understanding is that this movement is just grass roots, with no real central national platform, and certainly with no vetting process for the candidates that it backs.
Can this movement be successful without organizing at the national level?
Is this movement viable? Will it become, like the GOP did just prior to the Civil War, the dominant party of the country?
Just interested in opinions...
While I am not a member of the Tea Party movement, I sympathize with their intent, at least with what I perceive as their intent: that being smaller, less intrusive government, and a return to the founder's original intentions in this regard. However, my understanding is that this movement is just grass roots, with no real central national platform, and certainly with no vetting process for the candidates that it backs.
Can this movement be successful without organizing at the national level?
Is this movement viable? Will it become, like the GOP did just prior to the Civil War, the dominant party of the country?
Just interested in opinions...
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
I said it was representative of my peer group. Do you not even actually go to the trouble to *read( the comments before you jump on them?
Then you do not understand the term. Not a problem; your understanding is limited enough that this is expected.
It was not a "selected" group. It was what nature happened to put into my current sphere. I did not select them, they did not select me, we just all "happened to be here" -- a naturally random selection of people.
Not only is this not true, you know it -- it is part of what you have been hammering on me from the start. I never talked about "female voters in America" -- I spoke about the ones I knew.
You know that, and you have hammered on me about that over and over and over again.
Keep up with your own line.
2) Agreed that it is not a "statistically random" group. Given that all are filtered through your personal association with them, I disagree that it's even a "naturally random" group.
3) Your sample is not just "possibly" unrepresentative, but almost certainly unrepresentative. How many different religions are represented? Races? Economic levels? And then there's the personal filter from 2 above.
5) If "Confidence Level" is a "SCWAG", what do your call your own estimates? Have you even polled your sample group? Or are you just applying your personal prejudice, projecting the desired results? The studies I've mentioned contain REAL RESEARCH, with hard, reproducible results. Have you done any testing to determine the level of economic knowledge of your sample group? Or did you just "assume" the results you wanted? In short, how is your opinion any different from that of the guy who says, "I believe what I believe and it's true because I believe it"?
>> ...the "boots on the ground" are the ones who really understand how it works.
Not if the extent of your research is, in sum total, one opinion.
>> Yes, what I said was an "opinion." Every single research study ever written is an "opinion."
Incorrect. While it may be true that research RESULTS in opinions, I have yet to see a study that contained NO DATA, and consisted purely of an opinion. (Can you cite a single study of any kind, in any field, conducted at any time for any purpose that contained no data?)
>> They would then pick someone to peer review it. Do you think they would pick someone who felt differently than they did?
Some do. Some don't. While certainly some ego enters in, some researchers start out with a hypothesis which their research later contradicts. That is the purpose (and value) of peer review - to ferret out inconsistencies in data, methodology and conclusions. Honest researchers follow the data. Others reach a conclusion, then look for anything they can find to support their bias, but even dishonest researchers present evidence. (I'm thinking specifically of Michael A. Bellesiles' "research" into gun ownership in early America - where he cited to records that did not exist.) What research have you done?
>> Sorry, BambiB, but my "credibility" is not something you have the power to take or give.
Agreed. Others will have to read your comments and determine whether they think your research supports your conclusions. I don't see any research at all, consequently I personally perceive your comments to be unsupported opinion. Of course, if I'm mistaken in this belief, it shouldn't be a problem to present your actual data - instead of only a naked opinion.
My credibility has nothing to do with answering your list of queries. Anyone with google skills can answer questions -- and many think they are doing "real research" when they do it. Only the illiterate truly believe "googling" a topic is "doing valid research."
However, I'll take a stab at them, just for giggles and grins.
1) Yes, the "universe of all women [I] know" is a "statistically significant sample." Research and studies are published frequently based on these kinds of groupings (and less). Many are called "case studies" because they take a small, (previously) known, number of individuals, and study them in depth. In a lot of cases, the grouping becomes part of the "name" of the study (e.g. Voting attitudes of 2005/2006 Phi Beta Kappa graduates from the University of Texas). The point is that the grouping you identified could be called a "valid and significant sample."
2) It would be called a "naturally random" sample, but not a "statistically random" sample. If you understood those two terms, I'm thinking you wouldn't have asked this one. Even as stupid as you think I am, the risk of me being able to stuff this back at you would be too great.
3) Being "representative" is also part of a larger discussion. What makes a sample "representative" in nature? Would my sample be "representative" of society as a whole? Possibly not. Is it "representative" of peer groups like mine? Possibly. Is it "representative" of my peer group? Certainly.
4) The answer to this is the same as the answers to the preceding three.
5) "Confidence Level" is a SCWAG (scientifically calculated wild a** guess) of how close to my results another (set of) researcher(s) would come if they repeated my study. One way of looking at it is: if we asked another husband of my peer group the same question, how confident am I that he would give the same answer? The "confidence interval" is 100% minus the confidence level -- so if I was 90% confident that another husband in my peer group would report the same thing, then my confidence interval would be 10% (expressed as 0.10).
Since I acknowledged that there were fiscally irresponsible women in my peer group, there would be husbands who might report the opposite of what I did. So if an outsider repeated my empirical observations, they would find both groups. They would be able to crunch numbers and puke out a CI that would probably be more "statistically accurate."
One of the problems with people who have studied social research or studied statistics is that they think they have a corner on the knowledge of doing it. While they might have "theoretical" knowledge, the "boots on the ground" are the ones who really understand how it works.
Another problem with many educated-only folks is that they tend to view other folk's "empirical data" as "nothing but unfounded opinion." There is the assumption that if it is not gathered using "pure scientific principles" that is is somehow invalid.
That is why I mentioned I did both medical *and* social research. Anyone with a clue about either would understand why I would have mentioned both. Anyone with that much of a clue probably wouldn't stomp on me for "...[not] even know you [don't] know..."
Yes, what I said was an "opinion." Every single research study ever written is an "opinion." Significant work has been done to try to make that opinion objective instead of subjective by performing a number of (theoretically) repeatable steps. But in the final analysis, someone looked at numbers and formed an opinion based on them. They would then pick someone to peer review it. Do you think they would pick someone who felt differently than they did? That is what gets published: an opinion two researchers shared based on numbers gathered by one of them.
Using "pure principles," studies have proven such brilliant things as how drinking orange juice is a leading cause of death ("What percentage of people drank orange juice within 48 hours of death?").
I have never taught statistics, although I did get an A in both classes. I have never taught social research, although my undergraduate GPA was 3.978 and my graduate GPA was 4.0. Doing research studies has helped to support my family.
Sorry, BambiB, but my "credibility" is not something you have the power to take or give. This has been an interesting bit of banter, but I'm not interested in wasting more time attempting to "prove" something you seem predisposed to reject out of hand.
Address the particular issues if you want to have any credibility:
1) Is the universe of all women you know a statistically-significant sample?
2) Is it a random sample?
3) Is it a representative sample?
4) Is the sample of less-knowledgeable males statistically-significant, random and representative?
5) What's the confidennce interval for your conclusion and to what level of certainty?
If you have any of the expertise to which you allude (knowing about "both medical and social research") then you should also know that what you've proffered is nothing but an unfounded opinion. Here's your chance to back it up with real facts.
Your turn!
Piss me off I'm headin' for the fudge...dead give away.
Rocky's not a girl and he wants to post a recipe....
But you caught the idea. People will be going hungry in the not-to-distant future. A large percentage of our population may (will) starve to death and/or be killed by looting mobs of others who are hungry.
I see that in voting trends. I am a libertarian -- darn few folks seem to openly state that about themselves. But for me, I watch both ends of the political spectrum say the same exact kinds of things about the other end. Each side thinks the other side is filled with idiots or the mentally unstable or <fill-in-the-blank>.
Who am I to say that women do/do not vote responsibly? If you asked them, as individuals, they would have what they felt like was a reasonable justification for their vote. It might not agree with mine, but that is why we have a pluralistic system. I express myself when I vote; you express yourself when you vote.
I believe we fought the sexual revolution in the 1960's, and lost, big time. We now have broken homes and single mothers and rampant capital punishment for the crime of being pre-birth.
Men no longer have to "buy the cow" in order to "get the milk," if you remember that old phrase. So they don't. Nobody has to bother with curtailing their breeding habits. So they don't. In a society where the social order has all but vanished, who else will women look towards for stability and protection? They probably have reasonable justification for voting like they do.
When this social order collapses, and I am sure everyone in this conversation understands that it will, then those who survive will have this historical lesson to build from. The sexual revolution destroyed the greatest country in recorded history. I'm betting when "the smoke clears," and we "rebuild," which was one of the original comments, that this will be something the new social order will make dang sure doesn't happen again.
My team worked on a set of N values which were prime (3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, and 19). As I recall, the last three generated numbers so large so fast that it didn't take long before they were larger than the computer could deal with.
We were actually out of ASU (Angelo State, San Angelo), but because of faculty friendships, we could use the UT/A computers, as long as the programs did not interfere with their normal business.
We wrote the programs on punch cards, and the faculty member who lived in the area would take them home on the weekend and deliver them to someone at UT/A to run for us.
Now, does that date me, or what??????
Although I have to admit, doing a lunch group of me and a group of women gets me looked at differently and when I'm with a group of dudes... ;-)
Load more comments...