|
increpatio
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: 10:54:33, 20-12-2007 » |
|
For instance, if it was shown that, say, people are more likely to go to the opera if they are from an upper-class background, irrespective of education, that would be a meaningful statement to me. It would take some more investigation to interpret, of course You would need to compare people with the same upper-class background but with less or more or different education, no? Yeah exactly; one has to select one's samples carefully to separate 'class' from 'education', you need a lot more data though! (have I mentioned I've been idly fantasising about taking up statistics? will investigate more after xmas). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 10:56:16, 20-12-2007 » |
|
So I would say that the "price thing" is a red herring, overall.
I wouldn't say that myself, but I would say that such things are complex and do require thoughtful investigation. (say one could talk about the consumption of caviar related to the income of those who consume it, and come up with some clear trends; the trends themselves would require some interpretation, but they would be meaningful I think). |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 11:15:52, 20-12-2007 by increpatio »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 11:01:17, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Yeah exactly; one has to select one's samples carefully to separate 'class' from 'education', you need a lot more data though! (have I mentioned I've been idly fantasising about taking up statistics? will investigate more after xmas).
I'm sure there's someone somewhere who's worked out how to separate 'class' from 'education' in such things and I would LOVE to know how they did it!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bryn
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 11:06:34, 20-12-2007 » |
|
I take it that this was a foundation year project at Oxford Brookes. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 11:08:32, 20-12-2007 by Bryn »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Dough
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 11:13:35, 20-12-2007 » |
|
you don't think it's meaningful to show that people who have more education or are higher class have broader, rather than different cultural interests to those with less? Because using these (sillily-named) categories this is what they did.
I don't think you can show it: that's the whole point. Thinking back to school, for example, where there were a range of classes receiving the same education, wouldn't your statistics predict that the ones from the higher classes would be the most likely to have the broader cultural interests. In real life, that's not how it works at all: the one whose dad was a Rt Hon. was only interested in sport, and the one who came from the poorest background was the one who discovered music from being in a church choir. Obviously upbringing as well as education has something to do with it, but I'd certainly agree with Reiner that if you've already decided to prove by statistics a point which most of us from experience believe to be fallacious, then it's likely to make us distrust statistics even more. If you're applying false parameters at the start, then how can the final results make sense? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 11:21:47, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Thinking back to school, for example, where there were a range of classes receiving the same education, wouldn't your statistics predict that the ones from the higher classes would be the most likely to have the broader cultural interests. In real life, that's not how it works at all: the one whose dad was a Rt Hon. was only interested in sport, and the one who came from the poorest background was the one who discovered music from being in a church choir. And what about everyone else in your class? And in every class in the country? Anecdotes won't do in surveys of this nature. They work from a sample size of 6000+ in most of their papers I think. Obviously upbringing as well as education has something to do with it, but I'd certainly agree with Reiner that if you've already decided to prove by statistics a point which most of us from experience believe to be fallacious, then it's likely to make us distrust statistics even more. If you're applying false parameters at the start, then how can the final results make sense?
How are these four parameters false? And, they didn't set out to prove anything from the outset, from what a cursory glance (hopefully I'll get some time to read into this in more detail) could reveal to me: these classifications have a very definite history dating back to, I think, the eighties. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 11:33:10, 20-12-2007 » |
|
the one whose dad was a Rt Hon. was only interested in sport, and the one who came from the poorest background was the one who discovered music from being in a church choir. Which brings us to another variable, that of the people 'consuming' the same cultural 'product' some might be doing it because it's the done thing in their social group, others might be doing it out of genuine interest despite it not necessarily being the done thing. Admittedly they won't that often find themselves rubbing shoulders in the hall but it's another story that the numbers might not always reflect. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Dough
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 11:36:12, 20-12-2007 » |
|
That's the whole point, inko, it's a gradation: the problem about selecting these random notional groups is that they just don't take proper account of those who don't fit - like the rest of my class: there are often as many people who don't belong in the boxes as do, but they're discounted because they'd skew the results. Anecdotes won't do for you, because you assume that your dealing with a science. The problem for many of us who have worked in large organisations though is that we've seen it all before, the people who come in with the radical new plan 'based' on statistics, who don't believe the 'ounce of practice worth a ton of theory' addage is that over and again we've seen the flaws before the plan is actioned, we've been slapped down as 'anecdotal' only to watch the whole thing fall apart because the practical points had not been addressed, and then had to pick up the pieces from the fall-out....Statisticians and accountants - the parasitical scourge of the modern world. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 11:38:42, 20-12-2007 » |
|
That's enough beating about the bush, Ron, why don't you tell us what you really think? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 11:42:14, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Actually, I struggle to think of any subject for a survey about people's preferences and choices which could ever result in the entire population of the UK placed into four handy pigeonholes.
Erm; how about salaries?  That isn't really sufficient as a yardstick for measuring wealth, because you need also to take into account inherited wealth, property, and other assets. Some very wealthy people work very little or not at all, because they are able to live off the capital they have already amassed or have inherited. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 11:43:50, 20-12-2007 » |
|
I have a passion for music. I couldn't care less about it being "high culture". But I presume that by that you mean a passion for classical music? A great many people (especially young people) have a passion for music, just not of the same type. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 11:44:44, 20-12-2007 » |
|
slapped down as 'anecdotal' only to watch the whole thing fall apart because the practical points had not been addressed, and then had to pick up the pieces from the fall-out....Statisticians and accountants - the parasitical scourge of the modern world. I think it might be worth remembering though that something that doesn't take into account the points you've meant isn't just silly from an anecdotal point of view: it's also bad statistics not to have observed the situation in enough detail. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ruth Elleson
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 11:50:33, 20-12-2007 » |
|
I have a passion for music. I couldn't care less about it being "high culture". But I presume that by that you mean a passion for classical music? A great many people (especially young people) have a passion for music, just not of the same type. Funny you should say that. I actually typed "classical music" originally, but then decided to omit the word "classical" - as my point was that my cultural choices are dictated by my passion for a particular artform, regardless of how that artform is viewed by others. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Oft hat ein Seufzer, deiner Harf' entflossen,
Ein süßer, heiliger Akkord von dir
Den Himmel beßrer Zeiten mir erschlossen,
Du holde Kunst, ich danke dir dafür!
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 11:54:19, 20-12-2007 » |
|
That's the whole point, inko, it's a gradation: the problem about selecting these random notional groups is that they just don't take proper account of those who don't fit - like the rest of my class: there are often as many people who don't belong in the boxes as do, but they're discounted because they'd skew the results. Ah I certainly don't like those sorts of treatments either. But Anecdotes won't do for you, because you assume that your dealing with a science. No I don't! What I meant was that, say, people from a very low-income background occasionally make it rich, but that certainly disprove the fact that economic status tends, within certain demographics, to be inherited (not that this *needs* be the case, of course). The problem for many of us who have worked in large organisations though is that we've seen it all before, the people who come in with the radical new plan 'based' on statistics, who don't believe the 'ounce of practice worth a ton of theory' addage is that over and again we've seen the flaws before the plan is actioned, we've been slapped down as 'anecdotal' only to watch the whole thing fall apart because the practical points had not been addressed, and then had to pick up the pieces from the fall-out....Statisticians and accountants - the parasitical scourge of the modern world. Ah! These must be awful stories indeed! If this be the case, then they were incompetant statisticians. Anecdotes do not help much with statistical laws, but of course it might be reasonable to take them into account alongside them. Is your reaction to this article more a 'yeah, so what?'-class one than a 'all of this is absolutely meaningless'-one? That isn't really sufficient as a yardstick for measuring wealth, because you need also to take into account inherited wealth, property, and other assets. Some very wealthy people work very little or not at all, because they are able to live off the capital they have already amassed or have inherited.
Acknowledged. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 11:58:02, 20-12-2007 by increpatio »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
perfect wagnerite
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 11:59:33, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Statisticians and accountants - the parasitical scourge of the modern world. To be fair to statisticians, Ron, there is surely no group of professionals whose work is more roundly abused by people with something to prove. It's what non-statisticians do with statistics that seems to me to be really disgraceful. Now accountants ..... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
At every one of these [classical] concerts in England you will find rows of weary people who are there, not because they really like classical music, but because they think they ought to like it. (Shaw, Don Juan in Hell)
|
|
|
|
