[Mpls] 72 percent support bar/restaurant smoking ban

[Chris Johnson]

Michael Atherton wrote:

>Chris Johnson wrote:
>  
>
>>I'm baffled at how Mr. Atherton draws these conclusions.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm worried that Mr. Johnson is baffled by my conclusions!
>After teaching statistics and Introduction to Computers
>for a number of years I've become concerned that the
>persuasion techniques used in the media have risen above
>the threshold of the average citizen to detect them.
>Although I don't agree with his politics, I'm becoming
>more convinced that everyone should watch, "Manufacturing 
>Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media."  I do not agree with
>his conclusions, but it might be beneficial if everyone was
>a little more paranoid about facts presented in the media.
>  
>
Well, I'm not baffled because of a lack of understanding about 
statistics or a healthy paranoia about facts presented in the media.  
After passing 2 courses in statistics and 1 in probability (and a B.S. 
in C.S. ), there's not much in surveys or polls that gets by me.  I'm 
sure that the video you refer to would be instructive, highly so to many 
people.  There's also a small paperback book called "*Innumeracy: 
Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences 
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0809058405/qid=1085713267/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2226227-4455847?v=glance&s=books>* 
" by John Allen Paulos that would be extremely useful to those who don't 
understand simple statistics.

>>The survery asked if people supported a smoking ban, and 72% 
>>said yes.  That's hardly surprising given that roughly 70% to 80% 
>>of the population is non-smoking.
>>    
>>
>
>First let me say that although I agree with Mr. Hohmann's analysis,
>I don't think that the major problem here is sampling bias.  
>
I think Greg Abbott's analysis is more accurate than Michael Hohmann's 
in this case.

>I'll
>try and illustrate my objection with a simple example.
>
>"Who would you vote for in the next election, George Bush or
>Saddam Hussein?"
>
>If asked in isolation the responses to this question might
>give an inaccurate assessment of the public's support for
>President Bush.  Now consider the question:
>
>"Do you favor a citywide smoking ban in most indoor public places?"
>
>If this is a forced choice question without any other alternative
>proposals offered it might give an inaccurate assessment of
>public opinion (even if all citizens were surveyed).  For
>example, I would be forced to answer "Yes," but it would
>not accurately reflect my position.  
>
Why would you be forced to answer Yes?  Nobody is holding a gun to your 
head.  The obvious answer you should give would be No if you don't favor 
that kind of government intrusion. 

Yes, the wording to survey questions is critical, but I don't think the 
problem you worry about in this case amounts to any significant 
difference.  We should all take it and the media with a grain of salt.  
But I think you've gone overboard on finding fault with this story.  
It's no worse than average.

>If members of the group realized that the results do not
>accurately reflect public opinion, then it is unscrupulous.
>I think that it is the responsibility of the those requesting
>the survey and those performing it to insure that the results
>accurately reflect what is true of public opinion.  I don't 
>think that this is true in this case.
>  
>
By that definition, either 100% of the polls I've seen in the popular 
press are unscrupulous, or your stringency test is too extreme.  No 
survey, sample or poll is 100% accurate.  Those taken of people's 
opinions are even less so than say sampling an assembly line to detect 
flaws.  We have to assume the research firm knows as much about 
statistics, sampling error, and so forth as you and I.  If there is 
evidence that this particular firm doesn't do good samples and use good 
math, well then, let's have it.  That would certainly be grounds for 
questioning this survey, and I'll do it with you.

If 55% percent said yes, I might be concerned with whether it meant 
anything.  But 72% is a large enough margin that most any reasonable 
error is not going to matter.  Further, the obvious test for any reader 
to make when reading it is "does it sound reasonable given a basic set 
of facts" -- like the fact that 70% to 80% of the population are 
non-smokers.  So it passes the smell test, if you will.

It's definitely worth thinking about in a serious fashion and not just 
accepting stories and surveys like this on face value.  I agree that it 
appears the average citizen is not aware enough about what's going on -- 
though whether that's because the sophistication has risen as you 
suggest or whether it's more a result of apathy, short attention span, 
instant gratification, spoiled baby boomers or other cultural shifts is 
open to question.  One conundrum:  what would make the Star Tribune 
writer any more clever than the average citizen and thus capable of such 
sophisticated persuasion?

I'm as willing as the next guy to entertain conspiracy theories, but 
would say I'd far more believe it of tobacco company machinations, than 
of a bunch of doctors and newspaper writers.

I think it's a valid "which way the wind is blowing" measurement for how 
Minneapolis residents feel about smoking.  Accurate to 3 decimal 
places?  No.


Chris Johnson / Fulton