Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 395
Netizens-Digest Sunday, October 28 2001 Volume 01 : Number 395
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...)
Re[2]: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...)
Re: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...)
Re[2]: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...)
Re[2]: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...)
[netz] Standards--with a price tag - Tech News - CNET.com
[netz] about need for government role in Internet's development
[netz] View from Berlin and NYC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 20:41:03 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <MTL4@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...)
Dan Duris wrote:
>don't tell me about polls... first 2 years of my studies at university
>we had 2 classes on social behavioral and especially on opinion polls.
>since then i haven't been believing in any polls, especially those
>made by phone calls.[...]
It's possible that your instructors weren't very good.
Since you don't actually make an argument about phone polls, it's hard to
know in what respects we may disagree. One simple fact about phone polls
is that in American presidential elections (not the only domain, just the
one I know best), they are generally quite accurate -- not quite as
accurate as the statistical calculations warrant that they should be, but
much more accurate than the guesswork that preceded them.
The deeper question, I suppose, is whether polls can tell us anything
useful about what people _think_...
>average man (i don't like word average, but despite of that...) is
>consuming-oriented man who feels good in a grey mass and doesn't think a lot.
...and if one doesn't believe that people think enough for their thoughts
to be worth investigating, then of course the answer will be "no." I
suppose that's why I think this topic is of some interest on the Netizens
list: it touches on deeper questions.
>i don't have any prejudices against masses (ok, some), but this is
>my experience of many people living here and there. if you don't
>agree, tell me yours.
Well, I think most people (at least in the U.S.) quickly conclude that it
doesn't matter much what they think about politics, so there isn't any
point in thinking much about politics. That said, there's a growing body
of "deliberative research" into how people think about political
issues. Some of it gathers small groups together for days at a time; some
of it is short-term focus group research or even telephone polling that
gives more context on a particular issue. Regardless of the method (but
more so in the more intensive approaches), the participants tend to get
excited that someone actually is paying attention to what they think -- and
they think more. And, in my judgment, they tend to express fairly
reasonable and decent views.
What I'm saying doesn't directly contradict your statements, but I do seem
to have a more optimistic perspective on what we can gain by asking people
what they think. (Conventional survey polling is just one way of doing
that, not really the best -- but when done at all well, it does often
refute what pundits _say_ the public thinks, and I value it highly for that.)
>what is important is this:
>YOU think about polls and its results, also STEPHEN thinks about it
>and me (sometimes), too. but forget about the man described above...
OK, I'll grant you that most folks don't ponder the survey results they
hear on the news. I'm not persuaded that they uncritically accept them,
either. (As far as we can tell, people essentially _ignore_ most of what
they hear. See? fairly reasonable. ;)
Mark Lindeman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:22:24 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...)
ML> It's possible that your instructors weren't very good.
My instructor was very good one. One of the best living in Slovakia. I
haven't said I don't believe all of the phone surveys. I just don't
accept those made by TVs, newspapers and radios. I don't know about US
but phone call surveys here are the worst one.
Statistics is very nice, but only when it's done in proper way.
And many of those polls out there are not done in proper way. Again, I
am telling you facts about Slovakia, it could be little bit better in
US.
ML> either. (As far as we can tell, people essentially _ignore_ most of what
ML> they hear. See? fairly reasonable. ;)
OK, this is very good argument. So, I can not do anything else than
agree.
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- gouranga! -*
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:51:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stephen K Truex <skt8@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...)
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Mark Lindeman wrote:
> Dan Duris wrote:
>
> >don't tell me about polls... first 2 years of my studies at university
> >we had 2 classes on social behavioral and especially on opinion polls.
> >since then i haven't been believing in any polls, especially those
> >made by phone calls.[...]
>
> It's possible that your instructors weren't very good.
>
> Since you don't actually make an argument about phone polls, it's hard to
> know in what respects we may disagree. One simple fact about phone polls
> is that in American presidential elections (not the only domain, just the
> one I know best), they are generally quite accurate -- not quite as
> accurate as the statistical calculations warrant that they should be, but
> much more accurate than the guesswork that preceded them.
>
> The deeper question, I suppose, is whether polls can tell us anything
> useful about what people _think_...
YES...
>
> >average man (i don't like word average, but despite of that...) is
> >consuming-oriented man who feels good in a grey mass and doesn't think a lot.
>
> ...and if one doesn't believe that people think enough for their thoughts
> to be worth investigating, then of course the answer will be "no." I
> suppose that's why I think this topic is of some interest on the Netizens
> list: it touches on deeper questions.
>
> >i don't have any prejudices against masses (ok, some), but this is
> >my experience of many people living here and there. if you don't
> >agree, tell me yours.
>
> Well, I think most people (at least in the U.S.) quickly conclude that it
> doesn't matter much what they think about politics, so there isn't any
> point in thinking much about politics. That said, there's a growing body
> of "deliberative research" into how people think about political
> issues. Some of it gathers small groups together for days at a time; some
> of it is short-term focus group research or even telephone polling that
> gives more context on a particular issue. Regardless of the method (but
> more so in the more intensive approaches), the participants tend to get
> excited that someone actually is paying attention to what they think -- and
> they think more. And, in my judgment, they tend to express fairly
> reasonable and decent views.
I think that one good measure of Political Apathy (I almost said Atrophy)
is the low Voting turnout in the Presidential Election. Anyone know the
percentage from last year? I think it was something close to 70% and that
was really high. The one before that it is wasn't even 50%...
>
> What I'm saying doesn't directly contradict your statements, but I do seem
> to have a more optimistic perspective on what we can gain by asking people
> what they think. (Conventional survey polling is just one way of doing
> that, not really the best -- but when done at all well, it does often
> refute what pundits _say_ the public thinks, and I value it highly for that.)
>
> >what is important is this:
> >YOU think about polls and its results, also STEPHEN thinks about it
> >and me (sometimes), too. but forget about the man described above...
>
> OK, I'll grant you that most folks don't ponder the survey results they
> hear on the news. I'm not persuaded that they uncritically accept them,
> either. (As far as we can tell, people essentially _ignore_ most of what
> they hear. See? fairly reasonable. ;)
I liked dan's description:
"...average man (i don't like word
average, but despite of that...) is consuming-oriented man who feels
good in a grey mass and doesn't think a lot. better for him than to
think is to come from work home, to sit in front of this dull, empty
box called tv, to watch it for a while, to eat some chips, to drink
some cheap wine (or beer...and then to go to bed and to sleep."
it IS pretty harsh. this is a description of the proverbial "couch
potato." Homer Simspon. Al Bundy. Archie Bunker. no doubt these people
exist. myself coming from a lower middle-class family and watching way too
much TV as a kid, I can attest to a certain frightening similarity
between sitcom stereotypes and real people....
I wonder: would Homer, Al, or Archie vote in a Presidential Election?
Would they try and shoot or run over Arab/Muslim people?
another Statistic we can employ in identifying the Majority is the number
of people who watch Television; how much they watch it; what they watch.
If anything, the real litmus test of Mass Psychology is the Nielsen
Ratings. This presumes that we believe them of course...but the Media
Empires do love to quote their Millions of devout Viewers.
well, to bring this conversation around to what it might have to do with
Netizens...
Mass Media/Communication and how this ties in with psycho-socio-political
reality...
- -steve
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:47:36 -0400
From: Mark Lindeman <MTL4@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...)
Dan and Steve,
>ML> It's possible that your instructors weren't very good.
>DD> My instructor was very good one. One of the best living in Slovakia.
Sorry, I was being tongue-in-cheek. Actually, it's possible that we mean
different things by "phone surveys." Some stations and papers in the U.S.
offer voluntary call-in "surveys" that are just as useless as the Internet
polls....
>DD> I haven't said I don't believe all of the phone surveys. I just don't
>accept those made by TVs, newspapers and radios. I don't know about US
>but phone call surveys here are the worst one.
OK. It's always reasonable to start skeptical until convinced
otherwise. Maybe things _are_ somewhat better in the U.S. Several U.S.
papers -- particularly the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles
Times -- sponsor random-digit-dialing telephone surveys that are generally
at a pretty high level of quality. Not perfect, but far from useless. (I
don't mean to belabor this point; just trying to clear up where we may
agree and disagree.)
>ST> I think that one good measure of Political Apathy (I almost said Atrophy)
>is the low Voting turnout in the Presidential Election.
Steve, turnout in the U.S. is much lower than turnout in many other
democracies, but this doesn't correlate with greater apathy in the U.S.,
based on straightforward measures of apathy. (I'm not saying that there
_isn't_ apathy in the U.S.: obviously there is -- and also in other
democracies.) As far as we can tell, it has to do with different
registration laws, the "winner-take-all" structure of most U.S. elections,
and something fuzzily called "party mobilization."
To put it another way, I don't really hold it against people who don't vote
in presidential elections. Some of them just figured out that their votes
won't determine the outcome, so what's the point? (I don't mean to take us
off on a tangent about whether it is a Good Thing to vote, only to suggest
that it really is a tangent.)
>ST> I wonder: would Homer, Al, or Archie vote in a Presidential Election?
>Would they try and shoot or run over Arab/Muslim people?
There are a lot of couch potatoes, no doubt about it.
(Couch potatoes don't try to kill people: too much work. I bet Archie
voted in every election, but I have my doubts about Homer.)
>ST> Mass Media/Communication and how this ties in with psycho-socio-political
>reality...
OK, seems like a reasonable topic, although a lot of mass media crit
strikes me as not so far from "Thank God _I_ don't like Survivor!" (or even
"Thank God at least I have the intellect to be ironic about liking
Survivor!"). [Incidentally, I have never watched Survivor; I haven't
consciously tried to avoid it, but I don't watch much TV these days.] That
said, it's certainly sensible to wonder, to give just one example, how
Americans are being influenced by what they're seeing/hearing about the
9/11 attacks etc.
Maybe we could revisit the question of what use most people make of the
Internet (those, that is, who use it at all), and what it means.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:26:23 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] polls (WAS: A view from...)
SKT> much TV as a kid, I can attest to a certain frightening similarity
SKT> between sitcom stereotypes and real people....
i thought these people have never existed. but you told us otherwise,
so i am rather much confused. but i understand there has to be some
example of real life. they couldn't based it on clear fiction.
SKT> If anything, the real litmus test of Mass Psychology is the Nielsen
SKT> Ratings. This presumes that we believe them of course...but the Media
hm, i had social psychology, too. but as it was 3 years ago, could you
please clarify what the "Nielsen Rating" is?
SKT> well, to bring this conversation around to what it might have to do with
SKT> Netizens...
i just wanted to point out that there are still many people out there
who are passive receivers of flow of information. internet can change
this and is changing it slowly.
SKT> Mass Media/Communication and how this ties in with psycho-socio-political
SKT> reality...
i can tell you this:
in 1998 there were general election in slovakia. between about 20
parties there was also this SOP (party of civic understanding). SOP
was created and raised up for some particular wannabe legislators. TV
markiza (only commercial tv in slovak rep. then) created and supported
this party. in surveys SOP scored about 15%. of course this was only
bubble. SOP gained only 7% in general election. nonetheless, this was
quite a success. SOP was founded only in january 1998 and election
were in september same year. BTW: voting turnout for 1998 election was
84 point something percents... not-for-profit civic associations did
very good job (and i am glad i was part of it :) )
half a year ago owner and former general director of TV markiza
decided to create new party as SOP was loosing popularity. of course,
this time he decided to be leader of this new party called ANO (which
is equivalent of YES) and is acronym for Alliance of New Citizen. and
now, this is what i call good example of manipulation. can you see
those banners, billboards, tv shots?
vote for YES!, new faces in politics? YES! etc... of course, they
don't have any new faces and those supposed new faces are old
communists or ex-communists, what makes no difference.
p.s. maybe i look little bit pessimistic, but i am definitely not.
just tired of this wannabe politics in post-communist countries.
sometimes i wish to live somewhere else. preferably in some well-going
democracy :) who wouldn't love to?
ok, i am going to sleep, because it's 2:14 am and tommorow (or today)
i have to go to school.
bye,
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- why r u reading this? -*
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 12:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Standards--with a price tag - Tech News - CNET.com
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1272-210-7420188-1.html?tag=bt_bh
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 11:07:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] about need for government role in Internet's development
Following was an interesting post on a list I am on about the need for a
government role in Internet development and security matters:
The post begins to raise the important issue of what is the needed
role for government and for binding government agreements to support
the Internet. Ronda
there is also an interesting comment about ICANN's plan to take on
security at its upcoming meeting and the problems with them doing that.
>Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:01:37 -0400
>To: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
>From: Charles Brownstein <cbrownst@cnri.reston.va.us>
>Subject: Re: IP: John Gilmore on ICANN, Net-stability, and response to
> terrorism
>
>(Speaking or myself) I am all for international comity and having as
>little governmental oversight of the net as possible. Yet I think there
>are national security concerns - in the sense of infrastructure
>reliability- eg., rather than the spooky stuff- that the US cannot afford
>to abandon given the impact of the net on our economy- and which other
>nations ought review as well.
>
>I believe we need to think of the Internet in the same way that we should
>think about local mechanisms of commerce: roads, waterways, airways,
>spectrum, etc.
>That is:
>- the voluntary private sector has a role not an absolute right, given the
>common good and the appropriate motivations and limits of private
>interests in these arenas;
>- governments (especially democracies as legitimate agents of the
>citizens) have a particular fiduciary role and responsibility;
>- international responsibilities need to be formal with agreements binding
>on nations;
>- agreements need to strong and made under official umbrellas (we need to
>formalize the US policy umbrella and encourage other nations to do the same).
>
>Internet infrastructure reliability needs quite independent of special
>interests and intractable issues in intellectual trademark and name
>services. There is ample history of legal and appropriate cooperation
>among entities in this layer that evidence the broader interests of the
>Internet. There are outstanding motivations, directly among the private
>and public entities involved, to achieve results for reliability and
>national security requirements.
>
>ICANN is (perhaps appropriately) distant from the owners and operators of
>the physical Internet infrastructure where security can be achieved-- eg.,
>in the network layers. It has more than enough to deal with in the
>difficult area of the Internet that it was chartered to address- and on
>which its performance will surely determine its continue existence.
>--
>
>
>Chuck
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 18:51:24 -0500 (EST)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] View from Berlin and NYC
Dear fellow and sister netizens:
I hope that you all would not mind getting my view as perhaps it
differs somewhat from some others you have been seeing. It is out
of the debate of different views that each of us can make up our
own minds where we stand and what we want to do to contribute to
solving the deep problems, the great crime and horrendous acts of
September 11 have visited upon us.
Ronda Hauben had a paper accepted at a conference in Germany and
we went in the hopes it would help our healing a bit.
We are now home from 10 days in Berlin. The conference was
surprisingly valuable. It was a German government conference
called by the German equivalent of the US Office of Technology
Assessment. Invited were academics from all over the world to
speak broadly on the social impact of new technologies. It was
refreshing to be among people who took up the topic which had
partially been the focus of Ronda and Michael's Netizens: On the
History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet. We were shown
respect for our role and meet some interesting people.
Everyone without exception with whom we spoke in Germany (= about
30 people from all over Europe) thought the bombing and war
action of the US government was dangerous and could only make
trouble throughout the world. They were also concerned that free
speech in the US would be muzzled. Also, we heard that 100,000 people
in Berlin and Leipzig demonstrated against the war in Afghanistan on Oct
13.
It is not just Europeans who are opposed to the war in
Afghanistan. Many people I talked with since I have come back to
NYC throw up their hands and say this war can do no good. Some
say that the war must be for other reasons than to increase the
security of the American people. This weekend it was reported that there
were anti war or peace demonstrations in 59 US cities.
Ronda and I are still a bit jet lagged but I think the trip has done
Ronda and me some good. We seem a bit less pessimistic. When we
were saddened by the new scares and war efforts, one German woman
told us she was sure that there will be a world wide anti-war
movement and that there will be plenty of courageous people in
the US who will be part of it. So that this war will lead to a
greater internationalism among good people everywhere. Her hope
sought of gave us a little push to remember our own trust that no
matter what the situation, resistance is always going to emerge.
The question that needs to be answered which is not answered by the
war or by the anti-war movement is what can and must be done to make
people all over the world and in the US more secure and safe and
prosperous? My sense is the answer will be that we all must be
better citizens of our countries and better netizens of the world.
Anyway we are trying to be upbeat a bit more than we were able
before the trip. We still need all the help we can get.
Take care.
Jay
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #395
******************************
