From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 07 2004 - 18:49:49 BST
Hi Adam,
You wrote about being an Iraqi poll-ee:
>(then you'd probably worry about the consequences, which makes me question
>the morality of this PR endeavor.. but I digress).
Let's digress into the morality of polling, a subject that interests me
greatly. I've long championed the original and still to my mind correct
definition of morality as being "whatever most people do". As in "the
mores" of a society. It actually seems to come from the latin root "mos"
which is probably where "most" comes from too. Morality's relation to
ethics or objectively good behavior is thus only tangential, predicated on a
shared belief that most of us are good and ethical. There's usually no
conflict between what we think is good and what is moral, though these days
a cynicism pervades which regularly insists that most people would not do
what is good, an attitude which in itself is a contributing factor to a
lowered standard of ethical behavior.
How this relates to polling is very interesting, because in reality, what we
feel is moral is not necessarily an accurate sampling of what most people
do, but is only what we think most people do. Our standards of morality
are usually a notch or two above what actually happens, because we usually
never hear about unethical behavior. It used to be that if a student
cheated, he kept it to himself. Now, because of the prevelance of polling,
we all "know" that 90% of students cheat, or whatevr the number is. If we
think most people cheat, then we think it is moral, it is the expected
behavior, and we are MUCH more likely to cheat ourselves. The ethics and
good are subjective, after all, what matters is fitting in and doing what is
expected, not being an ethical fool.
This polling-pushing-immoral-behavior phenomenon also is responsible for
todays sexual attitudes, a la Kinsey's (flawed) "sex studies" of the
fifties, which ushered in a new morality of sexual behavior. Even if they
weren't flawed, they would have had a similar effect over time, because the
very nature of anonymous polling pretty much breaks the mechanism of
maintaining morality. People aren't supposed to admit to immoral behavior,
but these days there is exactly the opposite exhortation - people are
encouraged to be "honest" and admit to all their transgressions, on Jerry
Springer and in newspapers. People do have a need to confess their sins,
but there was a reason that sins were confessed only to the priest in
private, and the priest did not reveal them to the whole congregation.
To digress even further, this is exactly what is "liberal" about the media.
By its very nature, the media only reports the "news", the transgressions,
the anomolies, the titilating, and the interesting. A truly 'conservative"
media would not report the news at all, the television shows would be very
boring, showing characters going about their public-faced lives, not
admitting to any affairs or ethical lapses on camera.
Putting "DQ" on a pedestal and excoriating existing patterns of course is
also immoral, though those here who believe that DQ is the source of
morality and all that is good will of course object. And they aren't
immoral in being totally wrong about that, btw, most people believe that
"moral" is something that only a few enlightened people understand.
Johnny
>'63% of iraqis say good'
>
>Well, I had the misfortune of spending several years employed by
>several market research companies, including Gallup, and ICM (the
>Guardians political pollsters). As a result, I believe I have a good
>working knowledge of the industry. Let me tell you this, Market
>Research is nonsense. Without exception. The stats are so easily
>manipulated, it's just ridiculous. When they say 'random sample' take
>that with a bag of salt. Add to this that the people carrying out the
>research are poorly treated, and as a result have little or no regard
>for the manner in which this is done, the fact that the vast majority
>of people will give surprisingly varied responses to the same questions
>on differing occasions, and that the tone of voice used is often enough
>to invoke a particular response (certain answers = shorter surveys
>('routing') = less work)).. and you have, to quote "lies, damn lies..
>and statistics".
>
>In the case of Iraq, if you consider the situation the above gets even
>worse. The culture of the Middle East is notorious for suspicion, and
>in Iraq with its history of secret police, and the current situation
>whereby if any official is entering your property to question you (ie:
>Troops), that's a serious cause for concern. 2 years ago, such
>questioning could have resulted in your death (seemingly even that
>hasn't totally changed) .. those memories aren't erased quickly, and
>looking at the events Abu-Ghraib, the fear is still relevant. So, when
>they say 98% complied with the interview, it's hardly surprising. If
>you were hypothetically sitting at home in Iraq, let's say, your cousin
>disappeared at the hands of Saddam, there were troops all around, maybe
>someone you know was brutally interrogated by them.. then someone
>knocks on the door and wants to ask a few questions.. first you'd
>agree. Then you'd tell them what you think they want to hear. As if
>your life depended on it. (then you'd probably worry about the
>consequences, which makes me question the morality of this PR
>endeavor.. but I digress). The stats you use below are an indicator of
>nothing, except, that is, the will of whoever funded it to garner
>supposed 'facts' about the mindset of Iraqs populace. Gallup didn't pay
>that's for sure, and the FAQ you linked fails to mention it too..
>Garbage, basically.
>
>Market Research aside, the situation in Iraq will be explained in time.
>Will the Iraqis be handed sovereignty? Questionable I think, but we'll
>see. Is Iraq even governable without a harsh regime? Highly
>questionable, but we'll see. Will life improve for Iraqis, overall, and
>in the long-term? Maybe, I hope so, but it's not certain. In Iraq,
>nothing is...
>Personally, what concerns me is not so much that Iraq was invaded, but
>that it was done outside of the UN framework, and as such sets a
>dangerous precedent. The UN is far from perfect, but it's still the
>closest thing (albeit, not very) to global democracy. The same
>democracy we are imposing on Iraq. For us anyway, it's not a perfect
>system, but the best we have.. I'm sure we can all agree on that. So if
>Saddam (and he was) was a dictator who imposed his will without the
>consent of the people, what is the US doing on an International scale?
>The same thing it seems to me. This is what disturbs me most, and I'd
>be interested to hear your views on this, David and others. Ever heard
>of the 'Project for a New American Century'? Google it for more info,
>they are having it all their way.. Scary.. I would rather live in a
>word governed by a democratic body of nations, than by PFNAC's
>'American Leadership'..
>
>Best wishes to all,
>
>Adam
_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 07 2004 - 18:52:00 BST