Squirrely numbers and questionable methadology

[Totenkopf]

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

[Dagobahn Eagle]

A very interesting article. I'm in the middle of mod testing here, so I can't reply as of now, though. I'll check back later:).

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I hate to reply to a link with a link, but I find this very interesting. It basically talks about the lengths to which people will go to hold onto their beliefs:

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently issued a flier to combat myths about the flu vaccine. It recited various commonly held views and labeled them either "true" or "false." Among those identified as false were statements such as "The side effects are worse than the flu" and "Only older people need flu vaccine."

 

When University of Michigan social psychologist Norbert Schwarz had volunteers read the CDC flier, however, he found that within 30 minutes, older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual.

 

Younger people did better at first, but three days later they made as many errors as older people did after 30 minutes. Most troubling was that people of all ages now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC.

Disturbing.

 

The article you linked to is a really long one, so it'll take me some time to get back to you.

[Heavyarms]

Hmm...

 

No offense, but the Lancet count is way inflated over every other number I've ever read, and I've read from many different non-partisan groups. There's a reason it got chucked out. It also doesn't help that George Soros helped to finance it (who is known as a far-left person who funded the smear site Media Matters and MoveOn.org.) I'm sorry, it lacks credibility and I tend to believe I doubt it's true.

 

Edit: I read the article again, and I think I have a better understanding of it. The survey technique they used is the same one used by the CDC as they mentioned. The problem with the technique is it assumes all areas are equal in violence levels. That is hardly the case. That makes this survey busted and irrelevant.