nath
Fledgling Freddie
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 8,009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1264162,00.html
Anyone else think that this sort of poll is a complete and utter waste of time? I have loads of problems with it. For starters, the headline is "few or no black friends". It then leads on to say the statistic refers to "ethnic minorities". So which is it ffs?
I hate the fact that they've conveniently put together few and no in the statistic so you have no idea which is which. If it were "80% of white people have few black friends, 10% have none" that wouldn't be that bad - and that statistic up there doesn't discount that possibility.
Also, surely polls like this are affected by the location of the people taking them. I mean, surely in certain areas there are less ethnic minorities than others. London, of course, is a hotbed of multiculturality (is that a word?) - and if the poll was restricted to just here, I think the results would be a bit different.
However, I agree with the sentiment of the article, it's just that I really dislike it when they fiddle statistics to make them look more interesting than they may well be.
So uh - any comments/thoughts/contributions - or did you see a tree once?
Anyone else think that this sort of poll is a complete and utter waste of time? I have loads of problems with it. For starters, the headline is "few or no black friends". It then leads on to say the statistic refers to "ethnic minorities". So which is it ffs?
I hate the fact that they've conveniently put together few and no in the statistic so you have no idea which is which. If it were "80% of white people have few black friends, 10% have none" that wouldn't be that bad - and that statistic up there doesn't discount that possibility.
Also, surely polls like this are affected by the location of the people taking them. I mean, surely in certain areas there are less ethnic minorities than others. London, of course, is a hotbed of multiculturality (is that a word?) - and if the poll was restricted to just here, I think the results would be a bit different.
However, I agree with the sentiment of the article, it's just that I really dislike it when they fiddle statistics to make them look more interesting than they may well be.
So uh - any comments/thoughts/contributions - or did you see a tree once?