One in two favour Muslim immigration ban? Beware the survey panel given an all-or-nothing choice
abc.net.au/news/2016-09-27/beware-survey-that...
abc.net.auPosted Oct 2, 2016, 10:22 AM UTC
2673
abc.net.auI'm always very skeptical of polls and surveys. Back in the 90s, Cleo Australia published the results of a survey in which they found that something along the lines of 80% of self-identifying heterosexual Australian males had had anal sex with another man at least once. That didn't quite ring true to me, so I investigated further. The survey was based on a questionnaire published in an earlier edition of Cleo Australia, which isn't exactly a popular read with straight blokes, and involved the use of a self-return envelop. In research, that's called a response bias (i.e. you're only getting responses from those who are interested enough in the issue to want to respond to it).
So I am skeptical of this poll result. I wouldn't wholly dismiss it outright, but private polling companies are paid not to conduct unbiased research, but to find what their paying customer wants them to find while maintaining the illusion of being unbiased.
(If you want to learn how to fudge social research data data without actually falsifying any data, just ask me). Like Mark Twain once remarked:
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
12
I'd dare say that Essential polling is a bit more rigorous than 90's Cleo magazine.
19
Or maybe they're just better at appearing rigorous.
Snowball sampling is a data collection technique in which you find a respondent who is capable of giving you the data that you want and then asking that respondent to put you in touch with others who they think will also be able to give you the data that you want. Suppose then that our Essential Polling enumerator (the person who actually collects the data) were to stand out the front of an Evangelical church one Sunday for his initial round of data collection. Straight away, you have a biased sample. He then asked those who he has sampled to give him the contact details of their friends and family members, which is a perfectly valid data collection procedure if you are using snowball sampling. Needless to say, that social network is likely to share a number of ideals in common, thus leading to similarly biased results.
Another good example: Let's say you're asking Muslims about sharia law and this guy is the enumerator. Well, I like my head where it is (it isn't a very pretty head, but its the only one I've got). If this guy were to ask me stuff, I'd probably say whatever I thought was going to make him happy. That's called a social desirability bias, and it is something that polling companies can use to their advantage to solicit the responses they need to ensure repeat business.
1
along the lines of 80% of self-identifying heterosexual Australian males had had anal sex with another man at least once
So that's why there are so many discrete men on grindr...
2
Honestly the number of married men with no face pics asking for discrete no-strings fun on Grindr is pretty big.
2
80% seems a little high, I'd be thinking closer to 70-75%
1
This really made me Think about my own bias. The second I saw it I was like 'fuck off can't be right' but I wouldn't bat an eyelid if it said something I agreed with
7
For example, with regard to asylum seekers, nine polls between 2001 and 2010 using various methodologies asked respondents if they favoured or opposed the turning back of boats. The average for these surveys was 67 per cent in favour of turnbacks.
But, in 2010, the Scanlon Foundation survey tested opinion on this topic by offering four policy options, ranging from eligibility for permanent settlement to turning back of boats. In this context, a minority of just 27 per cent supported turnbacks
you'll be writing partisan rhetoric for New Matilda in no time champ.
Turns out humans fall somewhere on a policy spectrum... Who knew!?!
6†
Lol to all those getting upset when we Said "what were the polling methods".
6†
Did you read the article? Nothing was debunked.
4
I wonder, all the people who are pro Muslim immigration, what is the rate of Muslim in society they are happy with? Are they happy with 10% like in France? do they really think it will not cause any problems like it does over there?
I am not for outright ban but I think we should discuss rates and Australia should decide what kind of people should be allowed in and how many. Australia should preserve the white christian culture as the main majority culture.
6
I wouldn't say I'm pro Muslim immigration by I'm certainly not in favour of any immigration restrictions based on religion or ethnicity. Whatever the natural rate turns out to be is fine. There're already all kinds of conditions you have to meet to immigrate, they'll do.
7
So what is the rate of Muslims you are happy with? will you be happy if Australia become majority Muslim because those immigrants passed whatever other conditions Australia has?
-1
If australia became majority muslim
That is not ever a probable reality. So why are you concerned about it?
6
I am not concerned about majority, I am concerned even about 2%, I was asking what is the limit according to you, if there is no limit then Muslim majority should not be a problem, probable reality or not. But is this what you really think?
0
white christian culture
There is no need to add white to your argument (there are more non-white Christians in the world). I would argue even more strongly there is no need for Christianity in any culture...
6
People can hold onto traditions, or let go.
Enforcing this idea of keeping a "majority white christian" just seems backwards as fuck. Like the south of America in a civil war with its other half.
5
The people who don't care what the percentage of Muslims in a country is are the same people who are happy that so many Jews have left Sweden and France.
0†
Completely untrue
1
i am anti muslim immigration just as much as i am anti christian immigration. (also anti every religion immigration)
I don't care if you are iraqi, syrian, nigerian, irish or whatever but your religion should come second.
Your religion shouldn't be your defining characteristic, if your self identity is so wrapped up in beleifs rather than nationality or ethnicity or hell whether you like soccer or rugby then i don't want you. I also don't want the soccer fans, but thats just obvious.
0
Less surprised was commentator Ray Hadley in The Daily Telegraph:
"The left-leaning cafe latte sippers were left scratching their heads this week when an Essential poll revealed ..."
This is what people actually believe.
3†
They've reached peak parody. The extreme right seem to be obsessed with this.
2
What do people believe?
1
cafe latte sippers? is this real life?
4
No. It's parody.
2
Caught in a schaudenfreudeslide, no escape from banality
1
One important issue is the question of what the ~1,000 respondents that make up the Essential survey actually represent.
The ability to generalise from a sample to a population depends on how the sample was selected. When formal random sampling is used, then maths (probability theory) allows the results from the survey to be generalised to the population to a known degree of error.
The issue hinges on what the 'population' is. In this case, the sample is drawn from a panel of ~100,000 people who are paid for completing polls and surveys. Their opinions may be similar to the whole Australian population on some issues. But they may also be very different on others, if those who do surveys for pay differ from the population as a whole.
So the sample may, indeed, accurately reflect the opinions of the 100,000 people in the panel. But there is know way of knowing whether they reflect the opinions of all (adult) Australians. To do that would require either a systematic random sample of the Australian population, or that the 100,000 panel members themselves are a random sample (which they are clearly not).
So the company can legitimately claim their poll accurately reflects the opinions of the panel from which they are drawn. But there's no basis for the claim the results can be generalised to the Australian population.
3
But there's no basis for the claim the results can be generalised to the Australian population.
Presumably the same applies to the results of any polling on same sex marriage.
4
Well if results are from a random sample of the Australian population then they can be generalised to the Australian population. If it's a sample of a panel, then it can only be generalised to the panel from which it's drawn.
The point is the sample can only represent the population from which it's drawn.
2
Computer administration yields more reports of socially undesirable attitudes and behaviours than oral interviewing, but no evidence that directly demonstrates that the computer reports are more accurate.
So one of the two points put forward against the methodology is, at best, moot?
2
but no evidence that directly demonstrates that the computer reports are more accurate.
Absence of evidence does not mean that computer reports are not more accurate and their anonymous nature would probably be more revealing of peoples real attitudes when it comes to socially undesirable attitudes.
2
We're not doing a good enough job as national leaders to bring harmony and cohesion to our community.
I don't think the leaders are the problem here.
1
I think it's vitally important, whether you agree with the results or not, to always critically examine the methodology of surveys.
This is a very important point.
Had my first experience with Roy Morgan and IPSOS(iirc) this weekend. Was a doorknock at 1 on Saturday; that cuts the representative sample down a little (many young retail/service workers, bias's older M-F 9-5 workers). Poll at the door took atleast half an hour so their are bias's in who'll willing to do that as well.
They also left me with a couple of 100 page survey booklets to fill out for a $20 prepaid cash card and the chance of a cash prize. These are no measly surveys. If I do end up completing them it will take a couple of hours so think about the bias's in that population sample. I'm only thinking about completing them because 20 dollars for 2 hours of work is better than I have at the moment.
These surveys cover topics of finance, politics & current affairs, consumption & advertising, and media. So be wary of all survey results you hear about, the way they are conducted makes it pretty much impossible to have a perfectly proportionally representative population.
I dont see anything in this report which comprehensively debunks the result of the poll and the result still stands by itself in my opinion. I was suprised by the result myself and would have opposed a ban if I was polled.
Tell that to a feminist.
Tell that to a radical, far right conservative.
Oh wait, I just did.
rekt lmao
Nice deflection mate. Have a go at responding to the point next time.
why? I assume you are referencing a feminist ran survey recently?
Don't worry!
You can always rely on the ABC to critically examine anything that upsets the pro-immigration, pro-refugee, lets fuck Australia lobby!
Yeah, critical thinking is so un-Australian. We should have a new slogan: Stop critical thinking or get out.
[deleted]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.0649
Sometimes one must follow their heart!
Feelz over realz 2016!
Why does thinking pain you people?
"you people'' !!!