Bah. That's all I have to say. BAAAAAH. Also harrumph.UncleBob wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:03 pmUm, what? I didn't say you were wrong, I was talking about the difficulty of using this religious method for studying religion and this study in particular is all.hugodrax wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:59 pmIt's been an interesting and informative conversation. I just had my opinion denied in order for it to be rephrased and repeated to me to illustrate how I'm wrong. You pulled a Rusty.UncleBob wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:41 pmReligious affiliation is always problematic for at least two reasons: (1) not everyone understands or uses religious terms in the same way (think Evangelical) and (2) religion is often as much a cultural identity as it is a practiced faith. But since the study is really focused on political attitudes, it is unlikely that they will "drill down" further into the minute definitions or subtle nuances that may exist for a believer/sectarian. This is an important distinction within a fractured, contentious community of religious folks. Consider how even on CPS many people (like Olsteen) may be denied the label of "real" or "true" Christian (at least implicitly). However, if someone is participating in the study, just answering "no religion" or "not religious" should be a good gauge for the "nones", although that figure may be less than in practice. In short, one could argue that 53% should be higher.hugodrax wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:21 pm
I dunno, Bob. Once I see what the person is paid to prove, I tend to discount the study accordingly. This might not be entirely fair, but you must admit that it's a logical bias. Lombroso didn't mean to provide biased information; he quite subconsciously managed to pack more seeds into the Caucasian skulls.
It's an interesting subject, of course. I stick to my guns about what value it is asking somebody what religion they are. As a pollster, I suppose you have to take them at their word. As a regular church goer, I don't see a lot of the people checking off "Roman Catholic" on the polls.
It's also interesting to see where it might lead. As a shi'ite Roman Catholic, if somebody called me up and said "Hi, my name is Basil and I'm from the Nat Cen polling organization, mind if I ask you three thousand questions?" my reply would probably be to tell him he was a nice guy but get off the line. Now, if someone called me and said "Hi, my name is Kathryn (You can hear the "y" in these people's voices), I'm from the Nat Cen polling organization, mind if I ask you what religion you are?", my reply would be unprintable.
So who answers the question? Is it the Del's of the world, hellbent on pounding away on homosexuality one more time? Who is so proud of their religion that they are willing to be needlessly annoyed for its sake? Not martyred, mind, but annoyed?
The green ink brigade, that's who.
But I hear you on your qualms in this matter. I deal with this often in my work. I have to remind folks that while what I have is the best picture of what we have, it may not be the actual representation.
Harrumph, I say, and don't you forget it!
We just spent the afternoon wrangling over a Crux Post from their basement correspondent. There are no winners here, only losers.