|
Ian Pace
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: 12:03:23, 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. I've never understood this mode of thinking by which a handful of quite possibly unrepresentative anecdotal evidence is trusted far more than detailed statistical surveys. 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. Unless you fabricate the data, you can't prove an a priori point by statistics. And whether the experience of most of 'us' doesn't necessarily concur is all themore, rather than less, reason to attempt to be rigorous and scientific in investigating the matter. Incidentally, the whole topic of this thread ties in very strongly with the research in Bourdieu's Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, which includes a large amount of statistical data of its own - if anyone's interested, I can post a summary of his findings here later on? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 12:08:28, 20-12-2007 by Ian Pace »
|
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 #31 on: 12:08:06, 20-12-2007 » |
|
I've never understood this mode of thinking by which a handful of quite possibly unrepresentative anecdotal evidence is trusted far more than detailed statistical surveys. 'Trusted far more' - perhaps, perhaps not. On the other hand, ignoring anecdotal evidence makes no sense either when it points in the direction of possible flaws in the statistical assumptions. And exactly this kind of anecdote is the sort that points towards differences in the nature of cultural 'consumption' that aren't necessarily reflected in surveys that might be detailed without being detailed enough. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Dough
|
|
« Reply #32 on: 12:10:27, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Is your reaction to this article more a 'yeah, so what?'-class one than a 'all of this is absolutely meaningless'-one?
Definitely tending towards the latter, inko, because I don't accept the original premise of the four groups, unless to justify a redistribution of spending on the arts (i.e. further cuts). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bryn
|
|
« Reply #33 on: 12:12:45, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Ian, what have you to say of the exclusivity of the categories they use? Do you, for instance, fall within any of them? I know I don't. I well recall that during my undergrad years, I think it may have been 1985, the keynote speech at the annual gathering of the Royal Statistical Society took as its topic, the use and abuse of statistics in the natural and social sciences. The categories used in this research may have some history. That does not in itself confer validity on them.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 12:25:30, 20-12-2007 by Bryn »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #34 on: 12:19:05, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Ian, what have you to say of the exclusivity of the categories they use? Do you, for instance, fall within any of them? I know I don't. I suppose I fall somewhere between omnivore and paucivore (I don't often go to the ballet, say, not being especially keen, and haven't yet found any great interest in country music, nor really in that much pre-Renaissance Western painting, say). But all categories are generalisations, for sure, to which there will always be exceptions: such categories are necessary for observing wider trends in anything. |
|
|
|
|
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'
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #35 on: 12:24:06, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Unless you fabricate the data, you can't prove an a priori point by statistics.
I'm not sure about that, Ian. Selective data-sampling can easily produce whatever result you wish to obtain. The classic example of this was Thatcher's first election victory. All the Opinion Polls said Labour would romp home - the "Man In The Street" said so. Unfortunately, they forgot to poll the "Man In The Car". You don't have to "fabricate" data - you merely collect it in a way that will produce your desired results. We all know this, in fact... we see people doing surveys in the street, but we move on past because we have places we need to be. Those who stop to participate in polls are already atypical of the general population. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #36 on: 12:29:45, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Unless you fabricate the data, you can't prove an a priori point by statistics.
I'm not sure about that, Ian. Selective data-sampling can easily produce whatever result you wish to obtain. Sure, but I would call that fabricating the data. The means of data-gathering need to be laid open for inspection in order for the data to be shown to be sound. |
|
|
|
|
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'
|
|
|
|
Ron Dough
|
|
« Reply #37 on: 12:30:14, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Ian,
That was exactly the point I was about to make, that there's a group (selectivore?) which would fit the vast majority of us here, but has been ignored completely: I have a feeling that this is exactly the group which might resemble this missing 'cultural élite' ( though I'd fight the actual term with all my might).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oliver sudden
|
|
« Reply #38 on: 12:34:05, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Unless you fabricate the data, you can't prove an a priori point by statistics.
I'm not sure about that, Ian. Selective data-sampling can easily produce whatever result you wish to obtain. Sure, but I would call that fabricating the data. The means of data-gathering need to be laid open for inspection in order for the data to be shown to be sound. On the other hand the first assumption (whether you call it a priori or not) is that the questions are meaningful. How much money do you make in a year? Where did you go to school? How many cultural events do you attend in a year? Why? The last one's a bit harder to work out how to ask... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #39 on: 12:34:53, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Ian,
That was exactly the point I was about to make, that there's a group (selectivore?) which would fit the vast majority of us here, but has been ignored completely: I have a feeling that this is exactly the group which might resemble this missing 'cultural élite' ( though I'd fight the actual term with all my might).
I haven't read the full research yet, but if the categories were problematic, wouldn't that be demonstrated through a major imbalance in terms of the numbers belonging to any of them (for example, vastly more paucivores than omnivores, suggesting the need for a further break-down of the former, so as to include a category such as selectivore?). |
|
|
|
|
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'
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #40 on: 12:42:04, 20-12-2007 » |
|
I haven't read the full research yet, but if the categories were problematic, wouldn't that be demonstrated through a major imbalance in terms of the numbers belonging to any of them
In fact what you predict here came to pass in the results, Ian - the "Univore" group emerged as being enormously larger than the other groups. This already hints at a false premise in the way the data has been harvested or interpreted. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
Ron Dough
|
|
« Reply #41 on: 12:52:00, 20-12-2007 » |
|
In fact what you predict here came to pass in the results, Ian - the "Univore" group emerged as being enormously larger than the other groups.
Erm....'Anecdotally' I'd have expected that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #42 on: 13:24:18, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Ian,
That was exactly the point I was about to make, that there's a group (selectivore?) which would fit the vast majority of us here, but has been ignored completely: I have a feeling that this is exactly the group which might resemble this missing 'cultural élite' ( though I'd fight the actual term with all my might).
Ah, yes, very possibly! But, with these fellows, their notion of 'cultural elite' was one that was inextricably tied up with 'class'. What they are saying is that it's no longer tied to class, not that it doesn't exist. At least that's what I think they said. I would guess that their averaging might obliterate people like us. Which is a thing you were saying, right? (more examination of their articles is needed, but I don't have the time at the moment  need get haircut!) Is your reaction to this article more a 'yeah, so what?'-class one than a 'all of this is absolutely meaningless'-one?
Definitely tending towards the latter, inko, because I don't accept the original premise of the four groups, unless to justify a redistribution of spending on the arts (i.e. further cuts). eh? (you would accept it as a justification for cuts). It's definitely possible to use statistics to justify certain a priori decisions, even in unethical but nonetheless statistically valid ways. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 13:26:37, 20-12-2007 by increpatio »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Dough
|
|
« Reply #43 on: 13:30:46, 20-12-2007 » |
|
Just as a matter of interest, does a survey exist showing what percentage of the social élite are actually interested in matters cultural? I'm not convinced that it's going to be all that much higher the overall average.... And no, inko, I wouldn't accept such figures as justification for a cut in subsidies for the Arts at all  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #44 on: 13:39:20, 20-12-2007 » |
|
And no, inko, I wouldn't accept such figures as justification for a cut in subsidies for the Arts at all Ah, good; neither would I! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
