From: harling@miki.pictel.com (Dan Harling)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Survey impartiality (was Re: Profits to Japan?)
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:31:51 GMT
Organization: PictureTel Corporation

In article <1992Nov7.173420.12952@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John F Nielsen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.214504.19231@newsgate.sps.mot.com> mark@wdcwdc.sps.mot.com (Mark Shaw) writes:
>>
>>>Frankly, yes.  This is not as unbelievable as it sounds.  A very
>>>thought-provoking discussion on this subject took place in the
>>>rec.autos hierarchy several months ago.  In case you missed it, here is
>>>a recap (as I remember it):
>
>Just becaue you had a thought provoking discussion, ti doesn't mean
>the conculsion was correct.
>
>If you think the results of the questionaire in CU are baised against
>Americans and for Japanese because we are essenitally told by society
>how to think about our car then:

It's not because we are told how to think; it's because we are given an
idea what to expect.  The fact that expectations can and do affect our
observations has been demonstrated and widely accepted by scientists,
philosophers, and psychologists, and most everyone else who steps back
and considers the consequences.  The fact that Japanese automobiles
have been *categorically* considered to be (and portrayed as) better
cars than American products by the general public is also commonly
accepted.  Those are the theory's premises.


>Why is it that in CU just about Toyota cars(Celicas, Corollas, Camrys)
>uniformaly are black in ratings for reliablilty of their exhaust
>systems? **IF what you are saying is true then their should not be a
>pattern such as this.**

You are mistaken.  The theory would predict that, on the average, the
owner of a Japanese car will report more favorable results than the
owner of an American car.  Note, however, that repairs and maintenance
that cost a significant amount of money will be noted by the owner much
more readily than minor annoyances.


>The reason why it is plain and simple, Toyota
>exhasut systems rust out.  Take a look at the muffelers in some of the
>87-88 Corollas or Chevy Novas, you'll see a lot of them are brand
>knew.  Shouldn't the Japanese car owners have selectively deleted this
>fault from their memory? 

Of course not; the fact that the owner had to fork out $200-$300 for a
new exhaust system is undeniable; it is an empirical fact.  However,
when asked about their opinion on the ride of the car, the owner of an
American car might make note of a dashboard rattle or wind noise that
might not even come to mind when found in a Japanese car.  It is on
matters of impression, and opinion, that any bias would be the most
obvious.  If both owners paid $200 for a new exhaust system, they will
obviously indicate that they paid $200 for a new exhaust system.


>Have you ever looked at the reliability ratings or just glanced and
>decided everyone is baised because it does not show the results you
>wished it would. 

Actually, I couldn't care less what kind of results they publish.  I
drive cars that are twenty or more years old, and thus have no need to
look through CR's car ratings, unless a friend is looking at a used car
and asks me for my opinion.  In short, I don't even look at the ratings
enough to "keep score", as you suggest.


>Why is it that the Ford Crown Victora had great reliability while the
>Chevy Caprice Sucked? At the time(late 80's) they were very similar and
>very American. Did these Ford owners think the cars
>were Japanese?
>
>Same with Dodge Dakota(great reliability) vs. the Chevy trucks.

Maybe one car was just better than the other.  :-) According to the
theory, since they are both American cars, their ratings are equally
biased, perhaps even resulting in a very fair comparison.  The inequity
arises when different biases apply to the two cars being compared.


>I bet I can go through the whole book and find contradictions which don't
>coroborate with your theory.

First, theories based on psychology typically do not produce results as
consistent and uniform as theories based on physics, because people as
individuals (and even as groups) are unpredictable.  The only thing you
can meaningfully talk about is statistics, and there are bound to be
many anomalies.

Secondly, it's not my theory, is it?  Please read the last paragraph of
my original post:

> Note that I am citing this line of reasoning from memory, since the
> articles in question are long gone from my system.  Critiques and
> flames are welcome, but please don't direct them at the messenger,
> whether or not he really does believe the message.

[Hint: in case you didn't get it, I was the messenger]
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                 PictureTel, but they ought to be!
Newsgroups: rec.autos,rec.autos.sport,rec.autos.tech