That's what I want to talk about*.
Look at the picture above and choose one of the available answers to this question: Is this a rubbish, heavily biased survey question or what?
a) Definitely
b) Yes
c) Probably
d) Thursday
e) No.
I am many things. Just two of those things are Atheist and Mathematician. I feel qualified to take some slight umbrage at this piece of advertising from both, or rather a mixture of both, points of view. For those who don't know,
'Alpha is an opportunity for anyone to explore the Christian faith in a relaxed setting over ten thought-provoking weekly sessions, with a day or weekend away.' [In their words, from their website]My own experience with the Alpha Course is limited, so my views about it are likely to be a little biased. I have been pointed towards the course on a number of occasions, usually when a debating opponent has reached the end of their reasoning tether with regards to the existence of a God or Gods**.
But anyway, back to the poster. It annoyed me. Not because it was an advertisement for someone's religion; if you've got a club you're welcome to recruit members as far as I'm concerned***. It annoyed me because the whole God(s) / no god(s) debate is a long running and often heated one, and I don't like it when one side tries present so-called statistics which have been manipulated or collected in such a way as to skew the results in their favour.
As a maths teacher, at some point in the next few weeks I will be teaching at least one lesson on what makes a good (or bad) survey question. It's part of the AQA Module 1 handling data syllabus, and there are a number of 'why is this a bad survey question; how would you improve it?' type questions evident in the last few years' past papers. This billboard is a prime example, and I may well make use of it in future lessons.
Why's it a rubbish survey question? It's biased. That's the most fundamental survey flaw that GCSE (and earlier) mathematicians are trained to look out for. Survey questions should not be leading. 'You do like football, don't you?' is the kind of thing that's demonstrated as poor questioning. But the available responses are also a rich source of bias and attempts to lead people into picking the 'right' answer.
Lets look at the question in, er, question:
Does God exist?
Yes.
No
Probably.
Taking things back to absolute basics, lets assume that someone answering this question does so by picking one of the available responses at random. That means that each response has a 1/3 chance of being picked. But in reality, most people won't pick an answer at random, particularly on a survey on this subject!
So assume that everyone will either pick yes or no. That seems fair, doesn't it? You either believe or you don't. Right? No, actually. In a brief, internally conducted straw poll of the perceived standpoints of the people that I know, most people appear to be undecided on the matter. So they don't want to vote for a definite yes or a definite no. But look, here's a third option: probably. Well, it's not committing myself to a definite, so I'll have to take that one...
But it's still in favour of the existence of the questioner's God. It isn't 'I don't know.' It certainly isn't 'probably not'. It's not even 'maybe'.
So, back to the idea that everyone votes randomly: that's a 2/3 (almost 67%) likelihood that you'll pick an answer in favour of the thing that the questioner undoubtedly wants you to vote in favour of. Even when you take into account that most people won't be voting randomly, the closest thing to a neutral answer will grab many people who are quite happily on the fence or undecided about the matter and claim them as positive responses.
I think the most important question that such an advertisement conjures up is this: Why would a considered, rational thought or belief system have to resort to such blatant bias in its advertising****?
Feel free to agree / disagree / debate / comment. But please remember that I'd like to keep this blog a place that's suitable for all audiences, so profanity will cause your comments to be deleted.
Don't forget to head over to Mathsqs to ask your maths related questions!
* The Alpha Course website has this very poll on its front page. Why not vote? Just for fun.
** Mostly it's just 'a' God, as it's a Christian course and, as far as my limited experience leads me to believe, doesn't give the possibility of any of the world's many and varied, and just as sensible, other religions any airtime.
*** As long as it doesn't promote such pastimes as rape, genocide, misogyny and slavery. Any more.
**** Yes, I realise the irony in this post: I have supplied the Alpha Course with a little bit of free advertising. But I'm considering the fact that very few people read this blog, and those that do aren't likely to be here for the boobies,
.jpg)
Do u not think that the poster is not about statistics, its just meant to provoke thoughts and feelings? It obviously seems to have stirred up many thoughts in your mind- which makes me wonder if you should consider attending something like an alpha course before you pass judgement. Not everything in life is black and white or statistically proveable.
ReplyDeleteAll anyman can do is say that categorically he has never experienced God but that doesn't absolutely mean he doesn't exist, in the same way that I've never seen or driven a Bugatti Veyron but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
I have experienced God and so know he exists and I don't know how I could continue living my life ignoring him- He's Great!
Hi Teakay,
ReplyDeleteAs a pagan who think the goddess probably exists, I'd definitely avoid answering their survey. ;^)
I'm not going to argue on a religious basis...since I am definitely one of those you mention who would come as a maybe, or I dont have a clue, and I HAVE been on the alpha courese in my dim and distant past, so the idea the course may convert or convince you TK is hilarious, but I would love to be a fly on THAT wall!!
ReplyDeleteBut I am completely in agreement as to your other point. It IS a leading question...as an "0n the fence" person, I could not answer happily with any of those responses.
Can I borrow you next time Jehovah's witnesses come to my door tho? I get the impression they wouldnt want to call again after you had debated them into submission, lol!!!
Hi Rob,
ReplyDeleteThe poster is a piece of advertising, and one of the main purposes of advertising is to provoke thoughts and feelings, so I agree with you here. Any piece of advertising has (or to be more accurate should, in my opinion, have) a duty to open a viewer's mind to new situations/beliefs/thoughts/products/etc without being misleading. In this case the advertiser has chosen to utilise a statistical tool and, whether through ignorance or intent, has introduced a misleading dimension to the advertisement.
I apologise if I am inaccurate in my following statement, but you appear to have gone a little off-topic. My post was not a discussion about whether or not god/God/Gods/(g)Goddesses exist, but my own opinions about the misuse of statistical methods that (regardless of intention) introduces the possibility of deception: the advertisement attempts to deny a large number of viewers their own opinion, instead leading them towards a response in favour of the advertiser. This is not, in my view, a productive way to provoke thought, opinion and debate.
Hello Sue!
I'm assuming that the term 'God' does not, for you, work as an umbrella term that includes your goddess? This brings to light another flaw with the advertisement in that it doesn't even specify the deity in question!
And hello Jenstie!
I consider myself to have been in all camps with regards to the God[ess]([e]s) debate- a believer, an agnostic and an atheist- albeit to different strengths in each, and it was this attempt to sway those who would place themselves in the middle category that offended my sensibilities.
As for your Jehovah's Witness issues; I have not yet had my door knocked by any kind of religious cold caller who was interested in debate. Indeed, my limited attempts to engage such callers in anything that one might term a 'debate' has left me with the feeling that such people are statistically unfriendly. I do not, of course, mean this to imply that religious people are, in general, unfriendly; just the ones that knock my door!