# Fun with statistics



## zipperhead_cop (6 Sep 2006)

I just had a most interesting experience.  
My telephone rang, and much to my surprise it was a survey company calling during the dinner hour.  Normally this would meet with a standard ending, but this time the woman had a nice Brit accent and was able to hold my attention.  She rhymed off the company that she worked for, and stated that it was "one of the largest public survey companies in Canada" but I'll be buggered if I can remember who it was.  What was held my interest was that she asked me if I would be interested in conducting a survey with regards to Canada's current in involvement in Afghanistan:
A.  "Why, absolutely"
Q.  "Would you say that you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat don't support or strongly don't support Canada's mission in Afghanistan to fight terrorism and elements of Al Qaeda?"
A.  "Strongly support"
Q. "Would you  strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat don't support or strongly don't support the statement that the mission is of vital importance..."
At that point, there was a clear noise of another line cutting in and the other end was muted.  The muting sound stopped briefly, and I heard the woman's voice say "Alright then..." and the phone hung up abruptly.  I was on my land line, so there is no dead battery excuse for a cordless hang up.  

I have every belief that because I indicated that I "strongly support" our troops in the Sandbox, a supervisor intervened and made sure that my unhelpful opinion did not skew their desired stats objective, and I was ejected from the survey.  When the next opinion "stats" come out, if the name of the company is mentioned, I will be able to remember it.  I would also be very interested in finding out who commissioned the survey.  
I was curious if anyone else has had a similar occurrence.  I know that stats can be tailored to suit the person who is trying to use them, but this is ridiculous.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Sep 2006)

Funny I had a very similar question asked by a company doing a survey for PSAC on issues affecting our up coming collective bargining talks. When they started asking me about Afghanistan, I blew my lid and gave them a big chunk of sh*t and slammed the phone down, sent an e-mail to the union haven't heard back yet, better go stir the pot.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Sep 2006)

Zip

I am curious too.  Keep us informed, if you hear what Poll it may have been.  It would be interesting to know now that not only do they skew their survey to say what they want, but they have bent so low as to reject people being polled if they don't agree with the 'proposed results' of the Poll.  Talk about "fooling some of the people all of the time and all the people some of the time".


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Sep 2006)

Yeah, I'm burning to know the name of the company too.  Seems to me it was two names, like "Smith and Jones" (not those names, but a combination like that).  It wasn't one of the accounting houses either.  Grrrr, stupid sieve memory.   
It probably won't help, but the call started at exactly 1725 hrs on this date, and I am in the Windsor Ontario area.


----------



## probum non poenitet (6 Sep 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Seems to me it was two names, like "Smith and Jones" (not those names, but a combination like that).



"Smoke and Mirrors"?


----------



## rz350 (6 Sep 2006)

Ipsos Ried?


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2006)

This would be an interesting story to feed to the Blogosphere and the MSM. I wonder what will turn up?


----------



## geo (6 Sep 2006)

Leger & Leger ?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Sep 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Leger & Leger ?



You know, that might be it.  If they come out with some stats about Canadian opinions in the next while, I'll call it for a certainty.  
Do companies give out the names of who paid them to do the surveys?


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Sep 2006)

I believe they do.  It might say something like "in a poll sponsored by so-and-so....blah blah blah"


VERY interesting, but somehow, not surprising.  The left accuse the right of using shadow techniques all the time....


----------



## reccecrewman (7 Sep 2006)

So much for the usual claim survey companies usually make............ "1001 people randomly surveyed, results are within 1% acuarate"

Should be "1001 people SELCTIVELY surveyed, (We actually had to survey 1,829 to get the results our sponsor was seeking) results are within 50% accurate"


----------



## Hockeycaper (7 Sep 2006)

Maybe it was Jack Layton's spin doctors...oops I mean ....election committee?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Sep 2006)

Hmm I wonder...... 8)

New poll says most Canadians blame U.S. for 9/11 attacks

A majority of Canadians believe U.S. foreign policy was one of the root causes that led to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and Quebecers are quicker to criticize the U.S. administration for its international actions than other Canadians, a recent poll suggests.

Those conclusions are found in a newly released poll conducted by Léger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies.

The poll suggests that 77 per cent of Quebecers polled primarily blame American foreign policy for the Sept. 11 attacks. The results suggest 57 per cent in Ontario hold a similar view.

When participants were given the option of choosing more than one cause for the attacks, two-thirds blamed Islamic fundamentalists and their anti-Western views, while a third pointed the finger at Israel and its position in the Middle East.

Canadian opinions have hardened against the United States and its role on the world stage, said Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have contributed to a change of heart among people, he said.

But Canadians are divided on whether their government should pay more attention to issues fuelling extremist organizations in the Middle East, he said.

"There are a lot of people who think we should be listening closely [to extremist groups] and that there is an opportunity to dialogue with these sort of groups," said Jedwab Wednesday. "So it is showing a real ideological divide on some of these issues."

There's a growing need since the Sept. 11 attacks for balanced public education about terrorism, added Jedwab. "There is a tendency to see in these movements something more romantic than actually exists. That's something we need to keep debating in the country."

Léger Marketing interviewed 1,508 Canadian adults from Aug. 22 to Aug. 27. The poll results are considered accurate within 2.5 percentage points 19 times out of 2


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 Sep 2006)

In most surveys I have come across I have noted that most do not reveal who paid for it.   

And yes, there are quite a few tricks to skewing statistics.  As long as they obey the 'rules', many contrary opinions can be removed due to technical reasons (i.e. did not complete the survey).  It has been reported in some cases that the company can remove the results of persons surveyed who have a clear bias, with the first few questions acting as bias indicators.  

The same techniques are used in jury selection.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Sep 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> In most surveys I have come across I have noted that most do not reveal who paid for it.
> 
> And yes, there are quite a few tricks to skewing statistics.  As long as they obey the 'rules', many contrary opinions can be removed due to technical reasons (i.e. did not complete the survey).  It has been reported in some cases that the company can remove the results of persons surveyed who have a clear bias, with the first few questions acting as bias indicators.
> 
> The same techniques are used in jury selection.



Hah.  "Bias indicators".  So in all likelihood saying that I "strongly supported" the CF was their criteria to weed out "unqualified" participants.  Nice.


----------



## Weinie (8 Sep 2006)

Hey z_c,

  The link has a listing a canadian polling firms. Don't know if this will jog the memory or not.

  http://mcsrt.org/resources/polling/index.htm


----------



## Centurian1985 (8 Sep 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Hah.  "Bias indicators".  So in all likelihood saying that I "strongly supported" the CF was their criteria to weed out "unqualified" participants.  Nice.



A possibility, but cant say its true without more information.

Maybe you are just on the master list of 'Canandians from whom we dont want to hear opinions'?   ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Sep 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Maybe you are just on the master list of 'Canandians from whom we dont want to hear opinions'?   ;D



Hah!  But you suckers are stuck with me   :dontpanic:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Sep 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> A possibility, but cant say its true without more information.
> 
> Maybe you are just on the master list of 'Canandians from whom we dont want to hear opinions'?   ;D



Yep I think I have been added to their list also.


----------



## SIG MITCH (9 Sep 2006)

To bad you cant remember the name of the company.... In Canada its illegal for a call center or polling company to hang up the phone
without a proper closing! Just a thought to raise some hell lol


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2006)

Just watching the CBC news for a change and saw the article on Troops from Valcartier heading off to Wainwright to Train for deployment.  Part of the article included a spiel on the strong Peace Movement in Quebec and they went on to interview Mr. Mark Leger.  Sound familiar?


----------



## Hockeycaper (13 Sep 2006)

I seen that interview / story as well George. Did you notice that they talked about sending the Famous R22 Regiment... BUT... all the soldiers they actually interview were first a "medic" and then a "Gunner" I am aware that they are posted to the battalion and will be deployed as well. However if they (CBC) are focusing on the Vandoos they should interview members of that Regiment...don't you think???


----------



## GAP (13 Sep 2006)

This just came in this morning

Nik on the Numbers...Political Impact of Foreign Policy

SES was retained by the National Council on Canada- Arab Relations (NCCAR) to survey Canadians on the political impact of foreign policy on their vote.

Consistent with our past polling, almost two of every three Canadians (63%) would prefer that Canadian foreign policy be consistent with the United Nations rather than having Canada pursue its own interests (27%) - (10% were unsure).

Asked if our foreign policy in the Middle East favoured any particular group if any, 39% of Canadians said the Harper Government foreign policy favoured neither the Israelis or the Arabs. Another 33% of Canadians said our foreign policy favoured the Israelis while only 2% said our foreign policy favoured the Arabs (26% were unsure).

Significantly, Canadians are more likely to think that the Harper Government favours the Israelis by a margin of 17 to 1.

Surprisingly 54% of Canadians said they would consider changing their current vote preference if they disagreed with Conservative foreign policy.

As we look forward, it quite well may be that foreign policy may play a significant role in the dynamic of the next federal election.



  Methodology
Polling between August 18th and August 23rd, 2006 (Random Telephone Survey of Canadians, 18 years of age and older). The survey is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. 


  Canadians (N=1003, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20)
Question: Thinking about Canada's foreign policy what is more important to you: [Rotate] that our foreign policy be consistent with the United Nations or that Canada pursue its own interests outside of the United Nations?

Be consistent with the UN 63%
Pursue own interests 27%
Unsure 10%

Question: Would you say that the Conservative government’s policy in the Middle East favours [Rotate] the Israelis, the Arabs, neither the Arabs or the Israelis?

Favours Israelis 33%
Favours Arabs 2%
Favours neither Arabs nor Israelis 39%
Unsure 26%

Question: Thinking about the next federal election and Canada’s Foreign policy in the Middle East, would you consider changing your preference if you disagreed with the Conservative government?

Would consider changing 54%
Would not consider changing 33%
Unsure 13% 


The detailed tables with the regional sub-tabs and methodology are posted on our website at: http://www.sesresearch.com 


 Also this poll taken 27 August regarding the comfort level of Canadians with a Tory Majority ( in PDF format)

http://www.sesresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-SU06-T185.pdf


----------



## ClaytonD (15 Sep 2006)

I don't think they were trying to get any 'desired' result, if they wanted so, why would they even call anyone? The people hiring them could just fake it.

By the way was the company Ipsos-Reid? Also it could have been Leger. I also know a guy who works at Ipsos-Reid and he said they're working with some equipment up to 10 years old. 

Personally I think your claims don't have much weight. The circumstances in which she hung up could have been ANYTHING. So it's not good to assume that she is trying to screw you out of a survey result to get 'desired results'.


----------

