A recent
article written by a New York Times contributor
("Sorry, Liberals. Bigotry Didn’t Elect Donald Trump.") (makes
the statement that most Trump supporters aren't bigots. The writer cites a
single set of surveys as evidence of his conclusions. As a person who is more
informed than not on the subject of politics and who has had contact with
bigotry in many forms over my years of experience with humans of literally
every age group, I was a bit surprised
to see this conclusion. As the holder of a BA in Psychology and a Masters in a
related field I have been exposed (not by choice) to several statistics
courses. What we have here is op-ed and assumption masquerading as verifiable
data.
Statistics is
at once perhaps the most boring and yet meaningful measurement method we have
when determining, or better yet, "trying to determine" the actions or motivations of
the many based on the samplings of a relative few. As such, Stats (to shorten
it) is an imperfect science, as are all
the "soft" sciences - Psychology, Sociology, etc. When applied in hindsight, however, Stats is
relatively meaningless when being used
to explain the unexplainable by reverse engineering.
This is where
the article's author in his own analysis
ignores the bane of all survey composers and administrators - bias. One might
argue that bigots ARE biased, and no one could contradict that statement, but
as relates to stats, there is a far more subtle method to the madness of bias.
Among the
several significant forms of statistical survey bias, one of the more
meaningful, and probably in this case most relevant, is also the simplest: attention bias. Attention bias occurs because
people who are part of a study are usually aware of their involvement, and as a
result of the attention received may give more favorable responses or perform
better than people who are unaware of the study’s intent. A survey of voters
who voted for Trump and are aware he's been elected are very likely to attempt
to ennoble their efforts, regardless of their real motives. "I voted for him because he's a
brilliant businessman" (as incorrect as that statement has been shown to
be) "The fact that he dislikes Muslims, immigrants, and blacks don't enter
into it, nosirree Bob. I ain't no bigot."
Researcher bias
is another huge factor in skewed survey results and it isn't even statistical
or measureable. The viewpoint of the
researcher has a way of creeping into question design and analysis. Sometimes
this is intentional, but can be more subtle. All research designers are
human, and have points-of-view. Even the most practiced and professional
researchers can have subtle biases in the way they word questions or interpret
results. How we frame questions and report results is always affected by our
experiences and viewpoints – which can be a good thing, but can also affect the
purity of the study. An example: "So, why did you vote for this great
man?" After the sense of the question, it unlikely that the respondent,
even if biased , would acknowledge it in
a response such as "Well, ole Donny boy loves him some coochie, just like
I do."
In statistics,
sampling bias occurs when a sample is
collected in such a way that some members of the intended population are less
likely to be included than others. Simply put, if I only ask Trump voters why
they voted as they did, and they know the result, their responses may well have
no resemblance to their actual reasons.
Finally, we all
have , at one time or another met someone, perhaps even had a collegial
relationship with someone, whose reflexive response on race, ethnicity of
sexual orientation is "Well, I'm
not a bigot, some of my best friends are (Black, LGBT, Hispanic, etc)!" Shakespeare had
this sussed out over 400 years ago when he wrote that "the lady dost
protest too much, methinks." Although contextually different, it sums up
the reality of those more sophisticated racists, homophobes, etc, who while outwardly supporting all members of
society, use terms like "the Blacks", The Gay Agenda",
"Welfare queens", in conversations with 'their kind' of people.
Years ago,
Humphrey Taylor (Chairman of the Harris Poll) offered a particularly shocking
quote to others in his industry:
"On almost
every occasion when we release a new survey, someone in the media will ask,
“What is the margin of error for this survey?” There is only one honest and
accurate answer to this question — which I sometimes use to the great confusion
of my audience — and that is, “The possible margin of error is infinite.” When the writer starts with a conclusion , in
this case, manipulating statistics to seemingly expiate the guilt of Trump supporters for their association or complicit sympathy with
racists, homophobes, and others, the statistical error is predetermined.
Finally, even a
person who truly sees themselves as non- biased, and voted for Trump, which means
against reproductive choice, LGBT issues, Racial equality, the poor, civility,
organized labor, etc, etc, must have done so because these groups and issues are, in their
opinion, just not as important as White, Anglo Saxon men. I feel safe in stating
categorically, that while it is probably true than not all Trump voters are
bigots, all bigots who voted are Trump supporters.
Peace out.
No comments:
Post a Comment