From: dmd39855@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel DuBois)
Subject: Re: No solid proof to support ( was: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 09:15:22 GMT

dmd39855@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel DuBois) writes:

>gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

>>Daniel DuBois writes:
>>#I wish you had quoted the entire paragraph, I was much more clear there
>>#than I will be at 3:00 in the morning (now).

>>Not to flame, but in my opinion you are just as incorrect at 3am as
>>you were before.

>>#However, the statement
>>#made was that even if we assume that the x # of people that refused to
>>#answer the survey were participants in homosexual activity, this 7%
>>#people sampling cannot be reasonably extrapolated to represent the entire
>>#population.  Clayton was _giving_ up those people as a lee-way
>>sample.  

>>I disagree. Clayton was clearly assuming all of them *WERE*
>>homosexuals, to boost the number to the maximum possible. He is so
>>sure that the number is less than ten percent that he didn't even stop
>>to consider what 4.1+7 was. Now, I agree, it is highly unlikely for
>>all the seven percent are homosexual, but that is what Clayton was
>>assuming. 

>Damnit, how many times do I have to say this, its getting a little boring.
>The 4.1% can be extrapolated to apply to the population. OK, thats fact.
>Clayton gave up the non-respondents of the survey as positive repliers.
>If he had extrapolated this into saying all people of the population would
>have 7% non-respondents and hence, 7% additional positive repliers, THEN
>yes, 4.1 + 7 = 11.1... However, since Clayton was giving these numbers up
>for the sake of the arguement, with no scientific reason for doing so, he
>is free to 'give up' this many people with no necessarilly reasonable
>                                           -------------------------
>conclusions to come forth about the rest of the population.  YOU may make
>that conclusion, but just because you misinterpret someones arguement doesn't
>mean that your misconceptionms are now part of their arguement, and
>something to be refuted.

>If you want to argue what you think Clayton was trying to say, fine,
>thats debatable, maybe he actually did mean for the 7% to be extrapolated
>to the population.  However, my interpretation of what was said is quite
>possible, and if true, then the reasoning behind the above paragraphs/
>arguements are completely valid.

Well, Clayton has corrected this thread by saying that he did mean for the
7% to be extrapolated to the entire population, hence, it would be 11.1%.
So the above statements are derived from a faulty interpretation.  Not
admitting I was wrong in my conclusions however.

In any case, I would suspect that a large majority of the non-respondents
were prudish heteorsexuals, not homosexuals.  I would venture to add that
if one were to look for an unrepresented homosexual population amoungst
the surveyers, one should look for "no" respondents who were fearful
due to stigma for replying "yes."  I don't know how well these exit polls
were performed to insure confidentiality to the surveyers, easing their
fears so that they would tell the truth, so any numbers are strictly
guesswork.

-Dan

>-Dan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.space