Reality check: 95 percent of Americans had premarital sex

[ByaKya]

[quote=Chancellor;317518]

Quote by: ByaKya Did you have a point in quoting this part of my earlier post? Did you have a comment? Are you in agreement?

No of course not. In agreement with your OPINION that scientific polls are biased or not really science? dont be ridiculous

From your article
"then it’s not surprising that nearly three-quarters of American adults don’t understand the scientific process."

It looks like they are talking about you chancellor.
GG

But since im such a nice guy, im going to do the work for you, and im going to do the job your teachers didnt do.

How can a sample of only 800 or 1200 truly reflect the opinions of 200 million Americans within a few percentage points?

Sampling methods and measures of sample reliability or precision are derived from a mathematical science called statistics. Statistics is a subject taught in colleges and some high schools. Text books on the subject are available in most libraries.

At the root of statistical reliability is probability; i.e., the odds of obtaining a particular outcome by chance alone. As an example, the chances of having a coin come up heads in a single toss is 50%. Heads is one of only two possible outcomes. The chance of getting two heads in two coin tosses is less because two heads are now only one of four possible outcomes; i.e., a head/head, head/tail, tail/head and tail/tail. As the number of coin tosses increases, it becomes increasingly more likely to get outcomes which are either very close to half heads or exactly half because, as with two coins, there are more ways to get such outcomes.

Sample survey reliability works the same way - but on a much larger scale. As in coin tosses, the most likely sample outcome is the true percentage of whatever it is we are measuring across the total population. Next most likely are outcomes very close to this true percentage. A statement of potential margin of error or sample precision reflects this and often appears in poll stories. Using a sample of 1000 as an example, the statement could read: the chances are 95% of coming within +/- 3% of a hypothetical survey conducted among all members of the population. This means that 95% of all samples which could possibly be drawn will yield an outcome within 3% of the true percentage among the population.

Keep in mind that estimates of potential sample error always assume random samples. But even in true random samples, precision can be compromised by other factors such as the wording of questions or the order in which questions were asked.

There is no single ideal sample size. Samples of any size have some degree of precision. The question is always whether there is sufficient precision to draw conclusions as determined by statistical formulae



Why do polls often disagree with how I and my friends feel about things?

It is unlikely that you have a circle of friends as diverse as a randomly selected sample described before, a sample of the entire nation or of the state where you live. This would mean you have friends from all neighborhoods, of all ages, very wealthy friends and friends with no wealth, who are from all walks of life and with educational levels ranging from grade school to post-graduate.

No poll has ever shown all people feeling exactly the same way on one issue. So the next time you see a poll showing only 30% in agreement with your point of view, remember, although you may not be in the majority, it still means that 60,000,000 Americans feel the way you do.

How accurate are polls?

The NCPP analyzed final presidential election polls conducted by the national media dating back over 50 years. When compared with actual election outcomes, average poll error for presidential elections between 1956 and 1996 has been declining. Average poll error on each candidate during this period was 1.9 percentage points.

Important to this analysis of accuracy is that most of these polls were conducted within days or even hours before election day. Polls conducted 1-2 weeks before election day or even longer by local newspapers and TV stations cannot usually be expected to closely match election outcomes. Earlier polls are intended to monitor the success of campaigns and to identify the issues or events which will influence voter preferences on
election day.


Can wording of questions bias poll results?

How questions in a poll are worded is as important as sampling procedure in obtaining valid results.

Most professional polling organizations and their media clients review the wording of questions as carefully as editors would examine a manuscript before publication. This process usually calls for a review of several drafts prior to fielding a poll. Questions are checked for balance, that is, are they worded in a neutral fashion without taking sides on an issue? Does the question represent both sides of an issue fairly? Answer choices read to poll respondents must also be balanced; e.g., approve or disapprove, favor or oppose.

The order of questions must be in logical order. That is, general questions are asked before specific questions. For example, overall job approval of an incumbent must be asked before specific questions are asked which may remind respondents about the incumbent’s successes or failures. The same goes for questions asking respondents which side they take on an issue which may influence a later question about opinion of a candidate who takes the opposite side.

Questions are written using clear, unambiguous, concise language to insure all respondents regardless of educational level understand them. And since most polls are conducted by phone, a writing style suitable for the ear is often adopted as opposed to a style more suitable for reading.



You have two choices now chancellor. Either Submit, or forever be seen for what you truly are

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ByaKya No of course not. In agreement with your OPINION that scientific polls are biased or not really science? dont be ridiculous

Then there was no basis for you to just quote my post without commenting!

From your article "then it’s not surprising that nearly three-quarters of American adults don’t understand the scientific process." It looks like they are talking about you chancellor. GG

Actually, I do understand the process well enough to know that this particular "study" is bad science!

But since im such a nice guy, im going to do the work for you, and im going to do the job your teachers didnt do. How can a sample of only 800 or 1200 truly reflect the opinions of 200 million Americans within a few percentage points? Sampling methods and measures of sample reliability or precision are derived from a mathematical science called statistics. Statistics is a subject taught in colleges and some high schools. Text books on the subject are available in most libraries.

Yes, I'm well aware that this. That doesn't make this particular "study" valid. And, no, I don't accept that a sample of only 800 or 1200 or even 38,000 truly reflects the opinions of 300 million Americans.

At the root of statistical reliability is probability; i.e., the odds of obtaining a particular outcome by chance alone. As an example, the chances of having a coin come up heads in a single toss is 50%. Heads is one of only two possible outcomes. The chance of getting two heads in two coin tosses is less because two heads are now only one of four possible outcomes; i.e., a head/head, head/tail, tail/head and tail/tail. As the number of coin tosses increases, it becomes increasingly more likely to get outcomes which are either very close to half heads or exactly half because, as with two coins, there are more ways to get such outcomes.

Sounds like a bunch of bookies rather than scientists.

Sample survey reliability works the same way - but on a much larger scale. As in coin tosses, the most likely sample outcome is the true percentage of whatever it is we are measuring across the total population. Next most likely are outcomes very close to this true percentage. A statement of potential margin of error or sample precision reflects this and often appears in poll stories. Using a sample of 1000 as an example, the statement could read: the chances are 95% of coming within +/- 3% of a hypothetical survey conducted among all members of the population. This means that 95% of all samples which could possibly be drawn will yield an outcome within 3% of the true percentage among the population.

Most likely? Sorry, that's not science, that's guess work! As for this notion of using a small sample and extrapolating the results to conclude that this MUST be a "true percentage among the population," you might want to believe it's "science" but it's really nonsense.

Keep in mind that estimates of potential sample error always assume random samples. But even in true random samples, precision can be compromised by other factors such as the wording of questions or the order in which questions were asked.

Yes, I know this but that raises the question of how random it really is. In this case, you have only men and women to select from. How random is it when 33,000 out of the 38,000 asked were women?

There is no single ideal sample size. Samples of any size have some degree of precision. The question is always whether there is sufficient precision to draw conclusions as determined by statistical formulae

In this case, 38,000 is nowhere near being of sufficient precision to draw conclusions about 300 million people. Further, you can't say that 95 percent of Americans have had pre-marital sex when there's less than 95 percent of Americans that are at or above the age of puberty.

Why do polls often disagree with how I and my friends feel about things? It is unlikely that you have a circle of friends as diverse as a randomly selected sample described before, a sample of the entire nation or of the state where you live. This would mean you have friends from all neighborhoods, of all ages, very wealthy friends and friends with no wealth, who are from all walks of life and with educational levels ranging from grade school to post-graduate. No poll has ever shown all people feeling exactly the same way on one issue. So the next time you see a poll showing only 30% in agreement with your point of view, remember, although you may not be in the majority, it still means that 60,000,000 Americans feel the way you do.

Yes, well, it's fairly obvious that most people don't have a circle of friends as "diverse" as the so-called "random sample." And, no, 30 percent of those polled does not mean 30 percent of the total American population.

How accurate are polls? The NCPP analyzed final presidential election polls conducted by the national media dating back over 50 years. When compared with actual election outcomes, average poll error for presidential elections between 1956 and 1996 has been declining. Average poll error on each candidate during this period was 1.9 percentage points. Important to this analysis of accuracy is that most of these polls were conducted within days or even hours before election day. Polls conducted 1-2 weeks before election day or even longer by local newspapers and TV stations cannot usually be expected to closely match election outcomes. Earlier polls are intended to monitor the success of campaigns and to identify the issues or events which will influence voter preferences on election day.

The polls were conducted by the media: they're automatically suspect. Further, when election results are reported, only the results of Democrats and Republicans are usually reported. This doesn't account for the people who either vote for other parties or who don't vote at all.

Can wording of questions bias poll results? How questions in a poll are worded is as important as sampling procedure in obtaining valid results.

Well, of course it is!

Most professional polling organizations and their media clients review the wording of questions as carefully as editors would examine a manuscript before publication. This process usually calls for a review of several drafts prior to fielding a poll. Questions are checked for balance, that is, are they worded in a neutral fashion without taking sides on an issue? Does the question represent both sides of an issue fairly? Answer choices read to poll respondents must also be balanced; e.g., approve or disapprove, favor or oppose.

Yes, they review the wording of questions to make sure their clients get the results they want. Polls say what the polsters want them to say.

The order of questions must be in logical order. That is, general questions are asked before specific questions. For example, overall job approval of an incumbent must be asked before specific questions are asked which may remind respondents about the incumbent’s successes or failures. The same goes for questions asking respondents which side they take on an issue which may influence a later question about opinion of a candidate who takes the opposite side.

Logical order according to whom?

Questions are written using clear, unambiguous, concise language to insure all respondents regardless of educational level understand them. And since most polls are conducted by phone, a writing style suitable for the ear is often adopted as opposed to a style more suitable for reading.

Yeah, right! They're written so that they can only be answered in ambiguous or relatively inaccurate ways. You have a limited number of choices and you must pick one even if none of the answers are how you would answer (I've been polled on several occasions).

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: ByaKya You have two choices now chancellor. Either Submit, or forever be seen for what you truly are.

I disagree with you both, you're both too extreme. Statistical methods are very reliable, but if mistakes are made and bias is present, then they aren't in those instances. Think of them like a piece of gum; most of the time, it is used nicely for chewing, but sometimes it is misused and put under someone's desk. So I revert to what I saying here, with all due respect, which I sense is inadequate among some of you.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Epistemologist I disagree with you both, you're both too extreme. Statistical methods are very reliable, but if mistakes are made and bias is present, then they aren't in those instances. Think of them like a piece of gum; most of the time, it is used nicely for chewing, but sometimes it is misused and put under someone's desk. So I revert to what I saying here, with all due respect, which I sense is inadequate among some of you.

Yes, my view of statistics is extreme. I admit that.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Chancellor Yes, my view of statistics is extreme. I admit that.

I can't really blame you, though, because once a few studies are screwed up, it lowers the reputation of the entire field. Nonetheless, I encourage you to take a somewhat more trusting attitude, because some statisticians do a good job. For instance, the people doing the Gallup polls are rather credible; that's not to say that they won't make mistakes, but I suppose we can trust them more than this private think-tank.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Epistemologist I can't really blame you, though, because once a few studies are screwed up, it lowers the reputation of the entire field. Nonetheless, I encourage you to take a somewhat more trusting attitude, because some statisticians do a good job. For instance, the people doing the Gallup polls are rather credible; that's not to say that they won't make mistakes, but I suppose we can trust them more than this private think-tank.

Yes, to me all polls are automatically suspect. As for other kinds of statistics, the jury is still out but I will remain skeptical. Maybe if they didn't try to make people think that sampling a small number of people gives us a true picture of a much larger number of people I might be less skeptical. I don't have a problem with statistics such as ones that say, for example, "x percentage of Americans are between the ages of 18 and 44" because it is based on taking a census of the entire population (though it seems that some people still manage not to get counted) and not on some extrapolation from a small number applied to the whole.

[ByaKya]

I'm going to copy and paste chancellors entire post into the "most idiotic statements" thread.
This guy is arguing with me over scientifically conducted polls.
And his response to why scientific polls are ALWAYS accurate is "it only reports people that vote democratic or republican"

Yes, going to copy his WHOLE post

[Matt W]

Actually, ByaKya, what you are going to do is stay on-topic and avoid baiting comments like the above. Clear?

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Chancellor Yes, to me all polls are automatically suspect. As for other kinds of statistics, the jury is still out but I will remain skeptical. Maybe if they didn't try to make people think that sampling a small number of people gives us a true picture of a much larger number of people I might be less skeptical. I don't have a problem with statistics such as ones that say, for example, "x percentage of Americans are between the ages of 18 and 44" because it is based on taking a census of the entire population (though it seems that some people still manage not to get counted) and not on some extrapolation from a small number applied to the whole.

Chancellor...

You really and truly don't get it.

If you wish to be proven of the validity of normal distributions, you will need to study the mathematical proof yourself. Why don't you do that?

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Chancellor... You really and truly don't get it. If you wish to be proven of the validity of normal distributions, you will need to study the mathematical proof yourself. Why don't you do that?

No, I don't think he really has a problem with Gaussian distributions, the concept of the t-distributions, and all that theoretical stuff. He has more of a problem with the actual practice of the statistics, saying that many statisticians aren't being ethical and taint the entire field, so these results ought to be scrutinized. Or at least that's basically what I was saying, particularly with respect to the statisticians who did this poll and the nature of the poll itself.

I'm getting the impression that you're not paying attention to many of the stuff in his posts. Perhaps that's because he's a Christian or what not, and you think he denies all science. That's a circumstantial argument against the man, which is bad.

Anyway, back on topic, I revert to what I was saying before that this supposed sexual promiscuity is morally wrong.

[TheColdTruth]

Quote by: Epistemologist That's your opinion. If you keep being egotistical, then you minimize the aesthetic betterment of our universe and are thus an impediment to progress. So-called "people" like you are like a dam in the river of goodness. No, sir, I think you are the most evil thing in the universe, because you are a corruptive substance. And don't try to counter this with your hippie "elitist" insults, because you're just as elitist as anyone else. Ha, giving "freedom" to the masses. Pass the weed while you're at it. :rolleyes:

And its your opinion that being confident in certian truths isn't "aesthetic betterment of our universe". What I am saying is quite beautiful and not and impdement to progress... after all, a totalitarian government imposing communism on the people is in no way progress... it is the abolition of the individual and the end of any true happiness as we know it.

So-called "people"? XD Am I not a person? You need to use the dictionary if you're unsure what "people" means!

River of goodness? Ahahahahaha! Do elaborate on exactly what your definition of a "river of goodness" is. No wait. Let me guess. A gun free, crime free world where everyone loves his nieghbor and supports everyone else so noone ever has to work or breathe or plan or think or admit to bad things being an integral fact of reality and therefore living? Something like that? If I'm wrong, elaborate why. In detail, not in feeling spouting newspeak and being unsure of what basic definitions of what "people" are.

We speak english here. Use it. If you're unsure of a definition, look it up in the dictionary. We don't go by "your english", we go by english. Standardize or get out.

I am not a substance, I am a person, how exactly do you think I am corrupt? Because of my trust in the fellow man to do what he thinks is right, and follow his own happiness, even if it isn't the same path as mine? Because I'm not willing to force people to do what I think is right for them? Because I admit that death, disease, famine, hunger, rape, murder, and war happen, and refuse to attempt to blank out their existence, but actively WORK to get to the root of the issue to stomp it out?

I don't give out handouts to bums. I work for a living. I have no responsibility to my nieghbor or family or society other than making myself happy and hoping that people see the good common sense in this enough to do the same, and care about the things they see around them because they have a selfishly vested intrest in them.

And to the last of you said... what? Try to insult me accurately, at very least. Don't just say random things and expect me to be hurt by them. To get me to truly be affected my anything you're saying you have to at least be rational. I don't know many hippies that are gun-toting, pro-corporation, pro-capitalism in this neck of the woods. But like I said, if you disagree with anything I say fine. Just say why, in detail.

None of this ad hominem mud slinging fest back and fourth. You may be content to hate me because I don't agree with you and insult me at every opportunity, but I will only insult you when you do something to merit it; when you do something that's actually wrong. :rolleyes:

[Epistemologist]

My position is based on observations of the corruptive effects of selfishness. I've been doing some anthropology and thus numerous cultural analyses. And I see where you're coming from, but to allow too much just for sake of allowing stuff isn't a good position because it denies potential for aesthetic betterment.

Also, forgive me for my rudeness in the previous post, but I was pissed off by your unwarranted insults. What I did was not wrong; we're really just giving opinions back and forth. And don't appeal to emotion and stuff by comparing me to Communists, etc. So, I'm sorry about that incident, but I still think my position is most optimal.

[TheColdTruth]

Quote by: Epistemologist My position is based on observations of the corruptive effects of selfishness. I've been doing some anthropology and thus numerous cultural analyses. And I see where you're coming from, but to allow too much just for sake of allowing stuff isn't a good position because it denies potential for aesthetic betterment. Also, forgive me for my rudeness in the previous post, but I was pissed off by your unwarranted insults. What I did was not wrong; we're really just giving opinions back and forth. And don't appeal to emotion and stuff by comparing me to Communists, etc. So, I'm sorry about that incident, but I still think my position is most optimal.

What things made you arrive at your position? What corruptive effects have you noticed that are based ONLY from selfishness (not from laziness, immorality, or short-sightedness)? Allow too much? What are you afraid of, not having a government dictate to everyone what they are and are not allowed to do, like the good subjects they are?

Exactly what "aesthetic betterment" is it that you keep referring to. Must be something pretty important to you since you've used the jargon twice though, however with no more definition than a vague "feeling".

I really don't mind insults as much as I'm sure the moderators do (wouldn't want anyone to be offended now, would we), but I shall forgive you when you formally either retract your statements or explain them. If you're apologizing I'm to assume that you're retracting some of your statements?

Most optimal? How does optimization fit into morality, exactly? Do you mean your position is correct? Don't be afraid to drop the newspeak and say what you mean... "I still think I'm correct". I'm sure you do, all I'm asking for is the reasons behind why you believe as such. Why do you think you're correct? This is a debate board and understanding the reasons behind something is the quintessential cornerstone for debate. I'm just trying to get to an objective point.

Post Edit: Something I wanted to point out. By no means do I think man always does the right and moral thing if given the choice. However by the existene of organized society continuing every day in a progressive fashion (more than less, I'm well aware there's giant ghosts in the closet that hold back how fast we progress) it is apparent that the majority of people work towards a good, contstructive end. I don't think its right making laws that punish everyone for a few evil mens' actions. I think normal society can be trusted with a LOT more than they currently are, and that they SHOULD and WILL be. Eventually, anyway.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: TheColdTruth What things made you arrive at your position? What corruptive effects have you noticed that are based ONLY from selfishness (not from laziness, immorality, or short-sightedness)? Allow too much? What are you afraid of, not having a government dictate to everyone what they are and are not allowed to do, like the good subjects they are?

The biggest problems of selfishness that I've noticed is the downfall of movements and nations due to the egotism of a few individuals. Whether you like it or not, and I see the possible problems with it, but nationalism is opposite of egotism, which I'll call individualism i.e. not in the conventional sense of the word. When I say nationalism, I actually mean something more like "cultural-ism," in which each person looks more towards the interests of his/her community, which is defined according to a common inherent fiber of being, rather than his/her primitive needs when the two are in conflict.

That's assuming, of course, that a nationalistic action is truly sincere. For instance, it could be argued that Otto von Bismark was not a true German nationalist because all he wanted was a position of power in a solidified German state's government rather than the true welfare of his community; the same could be said of Cavour and others. Traitors such as Benedict Arnold in the U.S., the guy who betrayed the French community by ruling the Nazi occupation's Vichy government, and Mir Jafar who betrayed the Indian people to the English are frequent reminders of the weakness of individuals.

No, I never said that I want a government dictating to everyone. In fact, that isn't supposed to be what's happening. The goal, however, is to have a place where there is no excessive individualism, which makes us less human. This can only, be achieved, though, with a single cultural group, and the establishment of a single community with no deviance. People should know based on that common inherent fiber of their being what they need to do; government might simply be a whispering director of the collective will.

Quote by: TheColdTruth Exactly what "aesthetic betterment" is it that you keep referring to. Must be something pretty important to you since you've used the jargon twice though, however with no more definition than a vague "feeling".

The minimization of individualism. Indeed, some can't really be avoided because to remove all animalistic instinct might actually destroy us, but we can approach a certain goal through the national solidarity in the universal sense.

Quote by: TheColdTruth I really don't mind insults as much as I'm sure the moderators do (wouldn't want anyone to be offended now, would we), but I shall forgive you when you formally either retract your statements or explain them. If you're apologizing I'm to assume that you're retracting some of your statements?

No, I don't retract anything; you wanted further explanation, so I gave it. It just seemed like you were taken aback by my comments, which I felt were a matching response to your post.

Quote by: TheColdTruth Most optimal? How does optimization fit into morality, exactly? Do you mean your position is correct? Don't be afraid to drop the newspeak [sic] and say what you mean... "I still think I'm correct". I'm sure you do, all I'm asking for is the reasons behind why you believe as such. Why do you think you're correct? This is a debate board and understanding the reasons behind something is the quintessential cornerstone for debate. I'm just trying to get to an objective point.

When I say optimal, I mean it in the aesthetic, moral, and perhaps even metaphysical sense. Aesthetic in that there is minimized individualism; of course, like I said, we can't have a perfect world by eliminating all individualism, but we can make it as optimal as possible by eliminating whatever individualism we can.

Moral optimization can occur through this, in that there would be a single system of ethics associated with the achievement of the minimization of individualism because there would be a single culture.

And metaphysical optimization might also occur in the looser sense of the word since the intersubjective frame of reference associated with that culture's beliefs can be expanded and represent the absolute truth at least for humans. I still think I'm correct.

Quote by: TheColdTruth Post Edit: Something I wanted to point out. By no means do I think man always does the right and moral thing if given the choice. However by the existene [sic] of organized society continuing every day in a progressive fashion (more than less, I'm well aware there's giant ghosts in the closet that hold back how fast we progress) it is apparent that the majority of people work towards a good, contstructive [sic] end. I don't think its right making laws that punish everyone for a few evil mens' actions. I think normal society can be trusted with a LOT more than they currently are, and that they SHOULD and WILL be. Eventually, anyway.

Yes, that's another possible solution, although individualism wouldn't be minimized. And perhaps in the society of which you speak, they do work towards an ultimately good end, but they do so for themselves alone, and not for society's benefit. Each scientist building a rocket, for instance, is doing it to feed their families and not for the advancement of their community. Each volunteer planting a tree is doing it for some worldly or possibly divine recognition. Each man fertilizing a woman is doing it for his own pleasure or his future family, and not for the sake of his nation.
Here's an added example of individualism in the society of which you speak that's perhaps one of the best: the high number of divorces, which most often occur when people have no respect for the cultural element of matrimony and instead view marriage as just another thing to please themselves that can be "returned" just like cookies, soap, or a lawnmower. And all that, I'm afraid, is a risky problem with that society of which you speak.

There are some directive nationalists who drive that society forward. However, why not have more? Why not optimize the situation? Why not make one's nation prosper? The truth, however, is that that society of which you speak is fundamentally individualistic. It's like a virus, which many argue isn't even living, but it reproduces and continues. Indeed, it might be more correct to call it a pseudo-society; it's merely a collection of selfishly driven individuals.

You may think that what I'm saying is bad and stuff, but I really think that this is something that can't be discussed and resolved. It can only be resolved through other means. But eh, you asked.

[DCAPBTLS77]

I am completely dunbfounded, that someone can sit in front of thier computer, and pass judgement on the morals of a group of people simply because they have had premarital sex. I enjoy sex, I have had 4 partners in my 29 yrs , that includes the socalled non sex of the 90's, I am not married, so that makes me an evil horrible person not fit to live in this world because I seek pleasure ? That is essentially what Epistemologist is saying , as interpreted by me. What gives you the right to pass judgement? Who are you that you feel your way is the only way? I would not presume to say that anyone is a non person for seeking pleasure ..so long as no one is harmed, and nothing illegal is going on , and I do not mean the ridiculous sex laws that vary state by state. I have no children , I am careful , I am not a burden on the state or of the people in my nation , I work hard , everyday, and have seen things that would keep people awake at night when faced with the misery, suffering and death of others, Epi , if I am wrong in my interpretation of the things you have written please feel free to elaborate , but If I am not incorrect, you make me ill.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Epistemologist No, I don't think he really has a problem with Gaussian distributions, the concept of the t-distributions, and all that theoretical stuff. He has more of a problem with the actual practice of the statistics, saying that many statisticians aren't being ethical and taint the entire field, so these results ought to be scrutinized. Or at least that's basically what I was saying, particularly with respect to the statisticians who did this poll and the nature of the poll itself.

While I do, in some respects, question the validity of the entire study of statistics, my particular issue with regard to this thread is the validity of taking such a small statistical sample (far less than one percent) and extrapolating it to apply to the whole population - particularly since the sample itself was not an accurate representation of the whole and, most certainly, did not include a significant portion of the population not even capable of "pre-marital sex," i.e. prepubescent children. So, to say that this sample can be extrapolated into "95 percent of Americans" is really ridiculous. Again, I don't have a problem with statistics in the sense of, for example, the results of the Census (such as x percent of Americans are between the ages of 18 and 44 or x percent of Americans are multiethnic) because, supposedly, all Americans were counted.

Anyway, back on topic, I revert to what I was saying before that this supposed sexual promiscuity is morally wrong.

Well, I was intentionally trying to leave the morality issue alone.

[Praxius]

Quote by: DCAPBTLS77 I am completely dunbfounded, that someone can sit in front of thier computer, and pass judgement on the morals of a group of people simply because they have had premarital sex.

I agree...... nobody can pass judgement, because they're the one's who end up looking like the close minded fool....

I say..... everybody should slut it up and run around