Songs That Should Have Been Number 1
Music1 min ago
The Wisdom Of Crowds?
147 Answers
Was interested to see the following article in The Independent:
http://
It seems that the British public actually tends to believe grossly inaccurate things about their society compared to the evidence available. These findings are supported by an earlier survey commissioned by the TUC and carried out by Ipsos-Mori:
http://
//On average people think that 41% of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people, while the true figure is three per cent.
On average people think that 27% of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently, while the government's own figure is 0.7%.
On average people think that almost half the people (48%) who claim Jobseeker's Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year, while the true figure is 27.8%.
On average people think that an unemployed couple with two school-age children would get £147 in Jobseeker's Allowance - more than 30% higher than the £111.45 they would actually receive - a £35 over-calculation.
Only 21% of people think that this family with two school-age children would be better off if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job, even though they would actually end up £138 a week better off. Even those who thought they would be better off only thought on average they would gain by £59.//
Do ABers believe this evidence, or should we continue to place more trust in the 'man on the street' than on evidence deriving from research?
http://
It seems that the British public actually tends to believe grossly inaccurate things about their society compared to the evidence available. These findings are supported by an earlier survey commissioned by the TUC and carried out by Ipsos-Mori:
http://
//On average people think that 41% of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people, while the true figure is three per cent.
On average people think that 27% of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently, while the government's own figure is 0.7%.
On average people think that almost half the people (48%) who claim Jobseeker's Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year, while the true figure is 27.8%.
On average people think that an unemployed couple with two school-age children would get £147 in Jobseeker's Allowance - more than 30% higher than the £111.45 they would actually receive - a £35 over-calculation.
Only 21% of people think that this family with two school-age children would be better off if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job, even though they would actually end up £138 a week better off. Even those who thought they would be better off only thought on average they would gain by £59.//
Do ABers believe this evidence, or should we continue to place more trust in the 'man on the street' than on evidence deriving from research?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
And I can guarantee who they will be, they never back up their crazy claims with any facts, when you present them with contrary facts they holler that you don't know anything and then come up with something very localised and anecdotal. I dfon't mind who has what opinion as long as it's fact based. When it isn't it's really depressing even trying to debate, and makes them come over as bigotted so little wonder threads often fall into mickey taking and so on.
Office of National Satistics has this:-
http://
http://
well i just looked at the wiki entry, taken from the national statistics database, you can look for yourself if you like. A number of people on AB make absurd claims about people who read a certain daily paper, they liken them to fascists, and the like, without so much as a shred of evidence, and quite frankly that is just as tiresome, believe me.
i was simply quoting from the same source, in the wiki link
NS
In the 2011 census Office for National Statistics, the proportion of Muslims in London had risen to 12.4% of the population. In Newham and Tower Hamlets the percentages of Muslims were over 30%.
it just goes to show that this can all get out of hand, who is right, who is wrong.
NS
In the 2011 census Office for National Statistics, the proportion of Muslims in London had risen to 12.4% of the population. In Newham and Tower Hamlets the percentages of Muslims were over 30%.
it just goes to show that this can all get out of hand, who is right, who is wrong.
I did look em; it's Wiki, it's wrong.That's what I mean. It's necessary to cite serious checkable data if you argue a point otherwise we just have endless conversations like this. Anyone can edit Wiki. The Office of National Statistcs cite Muslims as being 4.8% of the population, which is actually slightly less than Mikey suggested.
i have been quoting sources that are supposedly reliable, if they are not, be it government or wiki, then how would one know what is the truth. If i see an accident happen, and so does another person, our stories will undoubtedly be slightly different if one had to relay it to the police.
racism of course not, and being accused of it is just absurd.
racism of course not, and being accused of it is just absurd.
Statistics v. Anecdotal evidence.
I will try not to bore you...but just a quick history from my personal reflections.
1955 We were advised to buy a book....Statistics for Medical Students"..so we did..bloody boring and couldn't understand one word. Luckily we did not get any questions on statistics in any exam........mainly because the examiners didn't understand it either.
Later in the 60's Sir Richard Doll and Hill produced their report on the statistics of Lung Cancer and smoking. Statistics was then held as a science and for the next 30-40 years developed into a science that everyone accepted as gospel mainly because only statisticians could understand statistics.
Anecdotal evidence was then for the "ignorant uninformed" and thrown onto the scrap heap of useless evidence.....in fact not evidence at all, but just a "dirty word."
Statistical evidence was here to stay.
Now, in the last 20 or 30 years, the compilation of "some" statistical evidence has been found to be , how do i say this, fragile or perhaps even fraudulent,particularly in some medical statistics and studies of particular topics. Socio-economic studies and statistics have come increasingly under scrutiny and unless Joe Blogs is a qualified statistician, he can easily be fooled or manipulated.
There is a place for statistics, but please do not discard anecdotal evidence and cast it off like a well worn Wellington boot.
Where do i stand ?
If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, then whatever the statistics say.........it probably is a duck.
I will try not to bore you...but just a quick history from my personal reflections.
1955 We were advised to buy a book....Statistics for Medical Students"..so we did..bloody boring and couldn't understand one word. Luckily we did not get any questions on statistics in any exam........mainly because the examiners didn't understand it either.
Later in the 60's Sir Richard Doll and Hill produced their report on the statistics of Lung Cancer and smoking. Statistics was then held as a science and for the next 30-40 years developed into a science that everyone accepted as gospel mainly because only statisticians could understand statistics.
Anecdotal evidence was then for the "ignorant uninformed" and thrown onto the scrap heap of useless evidence.....in fact not evidence at all, but just a "dirty word."
Statistical evidence was here to stay.
Now, in the last 20 or 30 years, the compilation of "some" statistical evidence has been found to be , how do i say this, fragile or perhaps even fraudulent,particularly in some medical statistics and studies of particular topics. Socio-economic studies and statistics have come increasingly under scrutiny and unless Joe Blogs is a qualified statistician, he can easily be fooled or manipulated.
There is a place for statistics, but please do not discard anecdotal evidence and cast it off like a well worn Wellington boot.
Where do i stand ?
If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, then whatever the statistics say.........it probably is a duck.
We have a word 'fact' for a reason though Em. 4.8% of the population in 2011 was Muslim, that's a Fact. No-one can argue with it except to molly around a small amount of people who didn't fill in the census or weren't here or who thought it might be a laugh to be a Jedi etc. It's pretty much an established fact.
' We are being overrun with Muslims' is NOT a fact, in fact it's anything but because the real facts show it to be a lie. It's not about interpretation, it's about facts, and even ones I don't like ( and there are a few) I have to bow to, and so should anyone who is debating anything seriously.
' We are being overrun with Muslims' is NOT a fact, in fact it's anything but because the real facts show it to be a lie. It's not about interpretation, it's about facts, and even ones I don't like ( and there are a few) I have to bow to, and so should anyone who is debating anything seriously.
What I think is objectionable in surveys is the fact that, it seems, often there is a set of closed questions or statements which people are asked to identify with. For example: "The Eiffel Tower is made of Cheese" . 20% of respondents, who probably had never given the matter a second thought, may think "aha, of course" and tick the box. So the survey concludes that 20% of people think ..."
OK, a daft example, and I am sure it's more subtle than that, but nonetheless it shows we should always be suspicious of any sort of "survey" of popular opinion
OK, a daft example, and I am sure it's more subtle than that, but nonetheless it shows we should always be suspicious of any sort of "survey" of popular opinion
