Survey Results. [Archive] - ClothesFree Forum

12-06-2003, 10:41 AM

I just had an email from Ryan - the lad doing the survey for his university course. This was the results of his question about public nudity:

Question 19.

"You are walking through your local park one afternoon when you see two adults walking naked through a grassed area where people are sunbathing or playing games.

Which of the following would best describe your reaction?
(a) I would feel alarmed or disgusted and would look for park attendant or policeman.
(b) I would feel embarrassed or shocked and would walk away quickly.
(c) I would feel slightly uncomfortable but would just ignore them.
(d) I would think that they were just harmless and would not disturb them.
(e) I would be pleased that they felt able to enjoy a warm day in the park without having to bother with unnecessary clothing.

Survey population: 588
Mean age of interviewee: 31.66 years
Answered (a) 136 = 23%
Answered (b) 201 = 34%
Answered (c) 114 = 19%
Answered (d) 87 = 15%
Answered (e) 33 = 6%
No answer given 17 = 3%

This information will be published on his university website in March or April next year, and I'll let you have the URL as soon as he does it. It is part of a wider study of social trends.

Originally he had planned to interview 800 people but one of his "interviewers" had a motorcycle accident and couldn't be used. The interviews were conducted at York Racecourse on Friday, 8th October 2003 and in York city centre and also at the entrance to the National Railway Museum in York on the 17th, 18th and 19th October 2003.

Any comments?

Stu

12-06-2003, 10:41 AM

12-06-2003, 11:42 AM

Apparently he polled college students who are still ingrained with being uncomfortable with nudity. I could be wrong but would be willing to bet that had he polled middle aged and older, there would have been more in favor instead of against it. I believe that most older people would vote "c". I would have voted "e".

12-06-2003, 11:56 AM

Jon-Marc

"I believe that most older people would vote "c"."

I wasn't present when the surveys were done so I can't comment - except to say that if you look at the locations he chose - outside a racecourse on a race day and in a busy city at a weekend. I hardly think it was just college students he polled. He said the "mean age" was 31.66 years but I confess I'm not exactly sure what he means by that.

"I would have voted "e".

I thought you would. LOL. I suspect most would here. Needless to say I would have opted for (a). It looks like we're both out of step with majority opinion. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

Kari P

12-06-2003, 12:02 PM

This survey is interesting. What is the base population in it? (I'm not sure about the correct word here. I mean the population from which a sample was drawn by such methods that the results can be said to represent that population. You used the words "Survey population" where you mean sample size.)

I count answers (c), (d) and (e) as neutral or positive to nudity. Their percentages count up to 40 %. Not bad! You surely say that 60 % is the majority, but this is only one question about one place where nudity can be viewed.

About the wording of the choices, my opinion is that they ask for two different things: the people's emotional reaction AND their action. We cannot know which thing has influenced more in the answers. For this reason the question should have been split into two separate questions.

Is it possible to have a mild emotional reaction but to take a strong action? Yes, I think it is, if one believes the thing seen is illegal.

Kari P

shãybare

12-06-2003, 12:58 PM

Quite right Kari P. That's the problem with surveys. They usually are a bit lop-sided one way or the other. They are not able to include enough condiderations. Reversing or rewording the choices could make a big difference. Even Ryans looks or what he was wearing could have influenced the survey taker.

12-06-2003, 01:09 PM

Kari,

Ryan used the term "population". I'm not a statistician but I take him to mean "sample size".

I certainly don't count (c) as neutral. If someone is in a public place they should feel comfortable and at ease. No-one has the right to wilfully behave in such a way as to make a significant number of others feel 'uncomfortable' when using a public place. The fact that they would, in practice, try to ignore it doesn't mean they are content that it should continue.

For me the important statistic is that AT LEAST 57% - a very clear majority - would experience emotions of alarm, disgust, embarrassment or shock. When you bear in mind that a further 19% experience discomfort, you are then up to 76%!!

The scenario and the questions in the survey were designed initially by myself but I did invite others here to offer alternatives and to improve them and from their iput I did modify the questions to be entirely fair. I then passed them on to Ryan. Nevertheless, I accept your point that there are two different issues, namely the feelings on the one hand and the likely response or behaviour on the other.

Shaybare,

I'm not sure how many interviewers there were but I know there were a few of them, not just Ryan.

Stu

Bob S.

12-06-2003, 01:27 PM

So less than a quarter of those who answered would have alerted the authorities meaning roughly 78% of the those surveyed wouldn't bother with the authorities. That is a sizable population.

Over a third would simply walk away from the couple, reading the reaponse, akin to encountering a couple engaged in sexual relations.

40% would either ignore them or admire them. And really, there isn't much difference between the c and d answers. They both imply leaving the couple alone, which equates to 34%.

I am not a fan of those specific possible answers. As I mentioned before, I believe that the responses should have been either two-tiered or concentrated on how willing they were to get the authorities' or how they felt about it personally.

But I am curious stu, how did you feel about the results compared with what you were expecting?

Bob S.

12-06-2003, 02:45 PM

Bob

I confess that I thought a much greater proportion would have chosen (a) than actually did. Apart from that I didn't really have many expectations. How did the reality match upto YOUR expectations, Bob? Do you think the results would have been much different had the survey been conducted in your own town?

I think we have to focus a little on exactly which answer of the five options gave the greatest response, namely (b) at 34%. These are people who would feel "embarrassed or shocked" and would "walk away quickly". The fact that they didn't state they would go to the trouble of alerting the police shouldn't be taken to mean they consider the incident trivial. You have to imagine what would go through someone's mind when you describe the scene. Park attendents are very hard to find in most UK parks - and here in the provinces (including York where this survey was conducted) you probably wouldn't succeed in locating one - and everyone knows that. So that means calling the police, giving them your name and address and telephone number etc. If you do that then the police would likely ask you to stay where you are until an officer could get there - and that could take some time. Then you'd have to show the police officer where the naked people were - which means going back to them and pointing them out to the officer. Then you'd be asked to give a written statement and possibly be a witness in a court case. Here the police have real difficulty in getting witnesses to come forward in incidents of disorder in the street, fights, obscene language and even in serious crime cases such as muggings. Generally the public just don't want to get involved - it's just a hassle in their lives they can do without!

Which ever way you cut it, as I said to Kari a significant majority stated that they would suffer negative emotions of alarm, disgust, embarrassment or shock upon seeing the nudity, and on top of that majority a further 19% report they would experience discomfort. Now people shouldn't have to feel like that when enjoying a pleasant walk in a public park, should they?

Ryan had a number of other social topics that he had to include in his survey and I'm grateful to him for including the one about reaction to public nudity. It wasn't possible for him to put in two questions, which was a pity. He will have some more data for me that breaks down the respondents into age groups, sex, marital status, occupation, income etc, but he hasn't processed that yet.

Stu

shãybare

12-06-2003, 03:07 PM

Already there are many interpretations of the survey. The survey actually proves nothing and is IMHO meaningless. Attempting to assume what the people taking the survey meant is futile. The survey can prove pretty much either side. Is this something really worth debating?

12-06-2003, 04:56 PM

Shaybare

I agree upto a point. The one thing that really is inescapable - at least as far as the relatively small sample is concerned - is that most people react with negative emotions when encountering unexpected nudity in a public place. I would argue, therefore, that the behaviour described is, by definition, antisocial. I which case it is not unreasonable to make it illegal.

Stu

namedun

12-06-2003, 05:22 PM

Stu, u think just because something is antisocial, it should be illegal?
Wow, I'd better start going to every party I'm invited to, or else I'll be illegal.

Seriously though, I think things should only be illegal when they are liable to cause serious harm to someone (physical, financial, mental, etc.) when whoever is harmed hasn't agreed to it.

I think it's safe to say that most people in the united states don't like.....hmm....communism (just to put it in the american context) They don't think it's morally correct, and therefore, don't want to see anyone walking around visually expressing their preference for communism (maybe walking around with a poster, giving out pamphlets or something). Does that make communism illegal? Does it mean that if you want to walk around with a poster that say's "things would be great with communism", are you going to be arrested? The answer is no, by being arrested your fundamental political freedom would be under attack. Your fundamental right to live the way you want to (without harming anyone) would be under attack.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bob S.

12-06-2003, 08:58 PM

stu, I was already unhappy with the wording of the questions. You cannot truly have two possibilities within one response. And realize that the final response only has a mental reaction and not a physical reaction.

And we also must notice that 40% of the respondents are at worst (according to the naturist side) neutral about seeing nudity in a park. Slightly uncomfortable but ignoring them is neutral in my eyes. And the ones who would walk away quickly, does that mean that they are walking away angrily? in a daze having seen a naked person? frightened? Giggling all the way home?

"a significant majority stated that they would suffer negative emotions of alarm, disgust, embarrassment or shock upon seeing the nudity"

Are they negative emotions? As I showed above, the embarassment and shock could lead to any one of the possibilities when they are walking away. The only satisfactorily negative answer was the one where they would actually seek the police (the behaviour). What the people thought can be interpreted in many ways.

"The one thing that really is inescapable - at least as far as the relatively small sample is concerned - is that most people react with negative emotions when encountering unexpected nudity in a public place."

How is this poll so special that you accept the results so handily, but disregard other polls that show better results for naturism?

"I would argue, therefore, that the behaviour described is, by definition, antisocial. I which case it is not unreasonable to make it illegal."

And I argue that only 23% of the respondents of this poll saw it so bad that they would definitely alert the authorities. Everyone else either doesn't care or doesn't want to bother themselves enough to make a big deal out of it.

Bob S.

Nude in the North

12-06-2003, 10:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Shaybare

most people react with negative emotions when encountering unexpected nudity in a public place. I which case it is not unreasonable to make it illegal.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet if nudity were made legal in those same places, it would no longer be "unexpected" , thus the majority of the people feeling "Shock" from seeing "unexpected" nudity would no longer be "shocked" .

And since the question suggests that only 1 couple ,in an area filled with Clothed people, was walking nude. You would expect more people to feel discomfort.
Perhaps the question should have asked , If you walked into an area of a park where a large group of people were enjoying themselves, doing all the usual "normal" things people do in a park on a nice afternoon, but many of them were nude. How would you feel?

The " Shock " of seeing 1 or 2 people nude may come from many thoughts. Are they Crazy people? Are they up to some mischeif? Are they perverts?
If thoughts like this are the first to come to mind , it's no wonder that people would fear nudity and be alarmed.

But if everyone already knew that it was legal ( assuming a law was passed or the public was informed that they may incounter nudity in public places.) And if it happened on a regular basis. People would no longer be shocked. The shock and "Kneejerk" reaction that many people have comes from it being a Rare or Unexpected incedent. That along with the belief that nudity is sexual, dirty, or perverted makes many non nudists automatically think the worst.
If people saw simple nudity every day they would become accustomed to it and have very little reaction at all. Once the public learns that nudity is NOT sexual, dirty, or perverted their reaction will change dramatically.
Once the fear of what the nude man's intentions are is calmed, then they will relax and go about their day the same as if the man were clothed.

It's not the nudity that shocks people so much as it's not knowing why he's nude.

"The only thing holding Progress back, is the Fear of Change."

Steve

12-07-2003, 01:07 AM

Namedun

"Stu, u think just because something is antisocial, it should be illegal?."

If it's in a public place, and it interferes with most people's enjoyment of that place, YES.

I think we have to draw a huge distinction between the right to free speech on the one hand and the right to behave as one likes on the other. Free speech is essential in a democracy whereas control of behaviour in public is also esential where that behaviour affects others. But even free speech has its limits. I wonder what would happen if I stood in Ground Zero in New York wearing a t-shirt bearing a picture of Osama bin Laden whilst burning the American flag and shoutin "Death to America"! Do you think the authorities wold protect my "free speech"? What you do on your own property is mainly your own business but what you do in public affects other people who have a right to be there.

Namedun

Bob

I know the survey has its limitations but it also has some validity and we can at least get a flavour of the opinion of the people in one British city based on this 'snapshot'.

"And we also must notice that 40% of the respondents are at worst (according to the naturist side) neutral about seeing nudity in a park..."

To me, Bob, the 19% that said they were "uncomfortable" were expressing a negative reaction. Who would choose to experience discomfort when enjoying a day at the park? And you STILL can't avoid the fact that 57% of the people expressed even stronger negative reactions! As I said, you shouldn't read too much into the fact that many of those wouldn't call the police for the reasons I gave you. Here in the UK the police report that people often see actual crimes being committed but don't call the plice because they don't want to get involved. One of my neighbours had some garden furniture stolen a couple of months ago. Another neighbour saw the thieves loading it onto the back of a truck at 3am but never bothered to call the cops! That hardly means that the neighbour is indifferent to crime in his own country - he was just being selfish, afraid to step forward and sign a statement and possibly appear in court. If an individual behaves in such a way in a public park, a place for enjoyment and relaxation, as to cause embarrassment and shock that causes another, ordinary person to hurry away from the scene then their behaviour is wholly negative and unacceptable. I really can't see why you are arguing the opposite case.

"How is this poll so special that you accept the results so handily, but disregard other polls that show better results for naturism?"

Firstly, it was conducted by a young man who holds no pre-existing views on the subject so far as I know. Secondly, he isn't being commissioned for doing it by an interested party - no money is involved. Thirdly, I discussed it here in advance and compromised on the original questions I was going to suggest in order to make them more neutral. So you had a say in what the questions were even though I realise you actually wantedtwo questions.

Nude in the North

"Yet if nudity were made legal in those same places, it would no longer be "unexpected" , thus the majority of the people feeling "Shock" from seeing "unexpected" nudity would no longer be "shocked" .

Very true. But do people actually WANT to have their sensibility-thresholds altered in tha way? I don't!

To get a fairer picture the survey ought to have been better designed - i.e. by a professional researcher rather than a 19 year-old first year undergraduate. Several questions ought to have been asked on the topic rather than just the one. But we can't just dismiss the findings as totally meaningless - they do tell us something.

"Once the fear of what the nude man's intentions are is calmed, then they will relax and go about their day the same as if the man were clothed."

I don't think they will. If a large family (adults of varying ages, both sexes and childen) went onto a popular beach or into a park in the UK and started, say, playing volleyball nude, there almost certainly WOULD be complaints. Yet nobody would suggest that their intentions were sexual.

With regard to change we have to remember that change isn't always for the better. And everybody has a right to have a say before changes are put into place that affect their lives.

Stu

Kari P

12-07-2003, 01:20 AM

Stu,

I read your starting post carelessly. I should have seen that the interviews were conducted at two places in York, so the inhabitants of York (only them, not all Britons etc.) could be the base population. But the way of sampling doesn't make it sure that the sample is representative. Because of this and the indistinctness of the choices, I must say that this isn't a poll to be taken very seriously. Yet we can discuss the results as already have been done.

"I certainly don't count (c) as neutral."

Why it is neutral to me? The choice was: "I would feel slightly uncomfortable but would just ignore them." It means only slight discomfort for unknown reason, which could be the uncertainty about the motivation of nudity, "how the others react, should I follow their reaction?", suspect of illegality, and even a hidden will to be nude too not being able to accomplish it - any of these connected with the rarity of nudity which means that the question hasn't been thought of by the interviewee before.

This for the mental reaction part of the choice. If we concentrate on the action part, the choice is neutral with no doubt.

Gary Naturist

12-07-2003, 03:39 AM

Survey parameters:

* Survey of social trends.
* Multiple question survey (nudity question was #19).
* 588 people interviewed.
* October 17, 18 and 19.
* Three locations: York Racecourse, York city centre, entrance to National Railway Museum.
* Median age of interviewee = 32 (median means half were younger, half were older).

Survey question, choices and percentage responses:

"You are walking through your local park one afternoon when you see two adults walking naked through a grassed area where people are sunbathing or playing games.

Which of the following would best describe your reaction?
(a) 23% - I would feel alarmed or disgusted and would look for park attendant or policeman.
(b) 34% - I would feel embarrassed or shocked and would walk away quickly.
(c) 19% - I would feel slightly uncomfortable but would just ignore them.
(d) 15% - I would think that they were just harmless and would not disturb them.
(e) 6% - I would be pleased that they felt able to enjoy a warm day in the park without having to bother with unnecessary clothing.
(f) 3% - No answer.

My comments:

Regarding the fact that the question asked about both reaction and action, I'm undecided as to whether doing so skewed the results. What people were asked to do was choose the response that was, for them, the most appropriate response from five clearly defined choices, and 97% were able to choose one of the five.

Would the interviewee choose the response that fit their likely reaction best, or their likely action best? I don't know, but the action offered in each case was reasonably appropriate to the reaction.

Regarding the other elements of the survey, the only question that I have relates to the locations chosen. Based on my North American experience, people who go to racetracks are not representative of the population as a whole. The same might be true of people who visit museums (and may include tourists).

It would be useful to see the results tabulated by age groups. Stu, can you get this for us?

If we look at the results with respect to reactions, there is a clear skewing towards the negative (at least 57%).

If we look at the results with respect to action, there is a clear skewing towards doing nothing that would affect the nude people (74%).

I expect that the people who reacted most negatively are those less likely to have ever experienced public nudity or to have thought about nudism.

Also, people often say that they will do things and then don't do them. I don't believe that anything like 23% of the number of people who saw Steve Gough nude reported him to the authorities.

Each person who goes nude in public chooses for him/herself the balance between the possibility of offending people and their own desire to enjoy nudity in the everyday world.

Many nudists would restrict their nudity so as not to offend the 66% who would have a negative reaction, however slight.

Some would avoid situations where people would be significantly offended (i.e. 57% of the total), but would accept the possibility that some might be slightly offended.

And a minority of nudists would be more assertive and restrict their nudity only when there was a danger of running afoul of the authorities.

And then there's Steve.

Gary

Naturist Mark

12-07-2003, 04:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
But even free speech has its limits. I wonder what would happen if I stood in Ground Zero in New York wearing a t-shirt bearing a picture of Osama bin Laden whilst burning the American flag and shoutin "Death to America"! Do you think the authorities wold protect my "free speech"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes they would, without a doubt. They wouldn't be happy about it, but worse happens every day.

You might run afoul of safety regulations with the flag burning {or burning anything else} in a public place not designated for that purpose. But under current law you would be OK if you relocated the flag burning to a barbecue receptacle at a public park.

The limits to free speech in America do not include offensive speech, only genuinely harmful speech such as (falsely) "shouting fire in a crowded theater (theatre)" or uttering "fighting words", (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/arts/topic_faqs.aspx?topic=fighting_words) or committing libel or slander (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/press/topic.aspx?topic=libel_defamation&SearchString=slander) resulting in harm (note that our defamation laws are much less expansive than the UK's).

-Mark

Trailscout

12-07-2003, 06:38 AM

Stu,

There is a vast body of social conventions that will never and should never be passed into law, but you ignore them at your peril.

We nudists are well-aware of this as well.
If you decide to act with reckless disregard for the sensibilities of the pilgrims to the World Trade Center, someone in the crowd might lose his composure and restraint and give you a damned good thrashing. Assault is quite illegal, but your assailant would have a very sympathetic jury.

Nudists sometimes try to stretch the limits of public acceptance. If done in the right context, some forms of public nudity will eventually be tolerated and even approved. Social acceptance of nudity is just as important as gaining legal sanction and is often a precursor to it.

I know of one wilderness beach where an open-air shower is situated in full view of the main island trail. Backpackers tend to be more relaxed about nudity than the general population, so taking a shower is fine. By placing the shower along a public trail, the park service itself seems to acknowledge that occasional nudity is a part of the wilderness experience on this subtropical island. Imagine a place where the summertime humidity is near 100 percent and the nighttime temperature never drops below 27 degrees Celsius during the summer. Nudity is common and very sensible in such a setting. (If you are fair-skinned you do need to avoid the midday sun).

shãybare

12-07-2003, 06:55 AM

Trailscout,

You said it very well. BTW, I was reading your other posts and if you don't watch out you're going to give the impression that people from Georgia are intelligent.lol /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NudeAl

12-07-2003, 08:21 AM

We all know that you can make a poll to reflect your own veiws simply by the way in which you word your questions and responses. Another consideration is that we will respond in a manner we believe is acceptable to the poll taker or who ever we are with when we speak to the pollster. In other words you might not want your old aunt or a potential significant other to get any funny ideas about you.

A more accurate way to test your theory may be to set up a little experiment at a local park. As described in your poll. This may or may not prove to risky and to risque for the local authorities. I'm just trying to point out that the way we say we will act and the way in which we do act are often very different.

My own personel experiences seem to indicate more positive reaction than negative. I don't go around nude in urban parks but I do hike nude in places where I can get at least a mile or so away from the nearest parking lot. I also choose trails that have very few others on them. I basicaly try to avoid all human contact on these little walks but accidents do occur. When I consider the reactions I have encountered I think the most common is amusement, chuckling being the prime indicator here, ambivulence or a non reaction is the second most common and positve or polite comes in about third and negative, well I have never had one of those. By negative I mean rude remarks or hostile actions.

I realize this is not scientific method and it is in the wrong country but it seems to refute, somewhat, this poll.

Bob S.

12-07-2003, 01:43 PM

"if I stood in Ground Zero in New York wearing a t-shirt bearing a picture of Osama bin Laden whilst burning the American flag and shoutin "Death to America"! Do you think the authorities wold protect my "free speech"?"

As Mark mentioned, yes they would protect that right of yours, except for the burning flag which may be a hazard. Our freedom of speech is a lot more lax than yours apparently. As long as you are not advocating violence, enciting a riot, or personally threatening someone's life, you can say just about anything. You also have to watch out about slander.

"To me, Bob, the 19% that said they were "uncomfortable" were expressing a negative reaction."

But in concert with the behaviour of ignoring the couple, it is a neutral. These people chose the answer that they would ignore the couple so they did not see it so negative that it would bother them.

"And you STILL can't avoid the fact that 57% of the people expressed even stronger negative reactions!"

I can see b) as possibly being neutral as well. I mentioned above that embarassment can be positive or negative. Walking away does not describe the frame of mind that they are walking away. The only truly strongly negative response is a).

And as for the arguments of people not wanting to get involved with the police, if the crime was severe enough, they will. What it says to me is that they are not bothered by it enough to report it. But this is a whole other debate; the willingness of eyewitnesses to come forth.

"But we can't just dismiss the findings as totally meaningless - they do tell us something."

No poll is totally meaningless. But I wouldn't place this one on a high pedestal. I would also like to see the margin of error.

"If a large family (adults of varying ages, both sexes and childen) went onto a popular beach or into a park in the UK and started, say, playing volleyball nude, there almost certainly WOULD be complaints."

And according to the poll, a mere 23% of the people would complain. Hardly a majority.

"And everybody has a right to have a say before changes are put into place that affect their lives."

They may have that right, but it may not mean anything. If a law is being applied wrongly, the majority may want it to continue but it doesn't make them right.

By the way, stu, mean age is the average age of the respondents. You take the ages of everyone, add them up, and divide them by the number of respondents. Gary, although you are right that median age is the middlew age (half above, half below) it does not mean that the median age is necessarily equal to the mean age. We don't know the median age.

Bob S.

aunaturelone

12-07-2003, 02:20 PM

The ovewrwhelming result of this survey is that only 23% thought it merited bringing in the law.

The people who simply walked away (34%) essentially said they didn't like what they saw but it wasn't worth the effort to force the nudes out or to force them to dress. They'd just move to a different location, "problem" solved. (Ain't freedom wonderful?)

This is precisely the same reaction you'd get if a rock band set up and played music you disliked or if you were a Tory and a Labor politician climbed up on a soapbox nearby and began to address a crowd of supporters.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of nudity prohibition.

Still, I don't know any of the background on the poll so I cannot address if it were properly done.

LakeSuperiorNude

12-07-2003, 05:34 PM

I am going to admit up front I did not read each post, but I did scan most of them. I am not a statistician, but in my education I did have some courses dealing with statistics and polls.

What are the demographics of this survey? One town at a few different locations (based on one of the posts above). Is this a true representation of the population at large? Wouldn't it be better to survey in numerous towns at several different events? What about the population size of the poll? A bit small. The locations indicated above (for example the track) indicate that these populations groups already have an interest highly in common because of the location, thereby reducing the random basis in the poll and the possibility of recreating it.

A study/survey needs to be able to recreate the results using the same parameters and result in nearly the same numbers for it to be considered valid. From what I have read on this topic, this has not happened, nor could I see those events being set up again to poll the groups. In addition, the population size is a bit small for validity as well. Until then, anyone can read whatever they want into this survey. In my mind it is not a valid survey.

Bob S.

12-07-2003, 05:55 PM

An extra comment. Why wasn't there a possibility of asking the naked couple to clothe themselves?

Bob S.

aunaturelone

12-07-2003, 09:34 PM

Because it is assumed we are all infants? That the respose to any offence, no matter how trivial, must either be to cower in fear or to run to mommy and daddy and make them stop?

Or maybe he just didn't think of it. Or maybe it didn't fit into the dual continuum (digusted/pleased and suppression/support) he had devised.

Any survey is limited by the questions asked. This survey would have been better with three separate measures, one for internal feelings, one for individual actions (what you'd personally do) and one for externally applied responses (what you think the authorities ought to do. Each of these general questions could then be broken into submeasures of the degree of the reaction and the direction of the reaction. Alas! One takes what one can get and goes on from there.

Since it was just one question in a larger social attitudes survey, he needs to ask the question again in a few years (and in the same way) to see if things change. The absolute numbers mean less that the trend. The sample size is good enough for a rough order of maginitude estimation. "Tracking polls" during political campaigns typically use 4-800 respondants and have +/- 3-5% margins of error.

Sample selection would be an interesting problem. Would you want to sample those people going to the park or the general population? Include older minors or not? Perhaps just sample members of the electorate? Sample is NOT large enough to break down to compare differentials in reactions from many different groups. If it were gender balanced you could probably compare differences in gender reactions while acknowledging a fairly large margin of error.

The average age of respondant indicates it was skewed heavily towards the younger end of the spectrum. The median age of adults in Britian or even of those going to the park or museum is MUCH higher than 32.

aunaturelone

12-07-2003, 09:46 PM

Most nudists would argue that if nude couples were to persist in frequenting parks over time, the responses would shift away from the most repressive responses and towards "live and let live" responces. The emotional reactions would shift away from the disgust and towards tolerance and acceptance.

If I were to see such a thing for the first time I'd probably assume it was civil disobedience, possibly related to some form of protest or demonstration. Or maybe even a Spencer Tunick shoot.

johny

12-07-2003, 10:37 PM

RE: Gary
""I'm undecided as to whether doing so skewed the results""

One of important factors may skew respondent answer is mirroring own habitat when thinking over a right answer.

So asking this poll in the city center and in the beach will positively give the contradicting results. Do you think because beach are overcrowded by pervs?? Surely not! Simply they immaginate how yhey would react if HERE they should see the matter of assumption, those couple of buttnaked in the park at near zone of seaside.

And asking the same question in the New York banking quartal the result will be positively top-to-bottom. Why? Would You say the inhabitants there are a pure puritan ore? No, (perhaps) they are much more pervs as those beachside, only they IMMAGINE the buttnakers are coming in their own office so all colleges may see them and ask HIS NAME and he is willing to die from the shyness for couple of times at year really (perhaps) he have custom for skinnydipping himself. Or afraid his Big Boss comes to that park too and sees he is tolerating those buttnaked and chop to him loudly - You declined to do Your citizen obligation for defend of morality here therefore You are FIRED!... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Would this work as explanation for skewedness? Therefore Disraeli was right saying that there exists only three kind of lays here - lays, damn lays, and statistics.

They should make the comparative studies in different habitats, including rural and remoted rural and many other, and randomize between the- or territory, or population rate; and little bit whitch on with a SPSS software, to gain a correct result. Seemingly this surway is made by inexperienced student OR by unproffessional specialist from another branch not having knowledge enough for even basis of statistics.

12-08-2003, 08:52 AM

A few points.

Trainscout said "Assault is quite illegal, but your assailant would have a very sympathetic jury".

So, in practical terms, a person exercising their right to free speech in the US would be treated less favourably if what hey were saying caused offence. People obviously think they have a right not to be offended. I rest my case.

"Social acceptance of nudity is just as important as gaining legal sanction and is often a precursor to it."

But that should only be achieved by persuasion and consent; never by confrontation or coersion. People are often too afraid or polite to voice objection to that which they objectionable.

"Imagine a place where the summertime humidity is near 100 percent and the nighttime temperature never drops below 27 degrees Celsius during the summer. Nudity is common and very sensible in such a setting."

Even with that humidity, what's so detrimental about putting on a pair of cotton shorts? Or wrapping a sarong around your middle?

NudeAl

"A more accurate way to test your theory may be to set up a little experiment at a local park. As described in your poll. This may or may not prove to risky and to risque for the local authorities."

Mr Steve Gough is conducting such an experiment. He will be spending yet another period of time in a bleak Scottish prison as a consequence following complaints.

"I realize this is not scientific method and it is in the wrong country but it seems to refute, somewhat, this poll."

It does vary from district to district and country to country. In many parts of Yorkshire you would be lucky to escape with your life if you walked naked in any public place!

Bob S.
"Our freedom of speech is a lot more lax than yours apparently. As long as you are not advocating violence, enciting a riot, or personally threatening someone's life, you can say just about anything. You also have to watch out about slander".

I realis that our freedom of speech laws are much tighter than yours, Bob, but there is nowhere in the UK where you couldn't incite naturist activity as is the case in Arkansas.

"But in concert with the behaviour of ignoring the couple, it is a neutral. These people chose the answer that they would ignore the couple so they did not see it so negative that it would bother them".

You can take my word for it or not, but I know my countrymen and especially Yorkshire folk. We are people who have a tendency to understate and I can tell you with total certainty that anyone who answered (b) was expressing very strong disapproval of the behaviour. I don't know how Americans interpret the sentence "I would feel embarrassed or shocked and would walk away quickly." but here, especially in the context of a public park, that means they'd regard that as a very negative experience and the behaviour that gave rise to it would be strongly disapproved of.

"I can see b) as possibly being neutral as well. I mentioned above that embarassment can be positive or negative. Walking away does not describe the frame of mind that they are walking away. The only truly strongly negative response is a)."

All I can say is we must use language very differently here in the UK. I showed your responses here to a female colleague (a secretary at my university). I don't know here views on this subject but she knows about the survey (she typed the question sheets) and that I'm discussing it on here. Her response to your interpretation of the meaning was to screw up her face and say "is this fellow for real?"

Do me a favour, Bob, try this out on some non-nudist colleagues where you work. See if they come to the same conclusions as you do, or if they prefer my reading of what people who answered (b) think.

"And as for the arguments of people not wanting to get involved with the police, if the crime was severe enough, they will."

Firstly nobody is suggesting that the crime was severe. It's offensive and is and should be considered illegal. I'd put it on a par with, say, abandoning a bag of refuse in the park in terms of seriousness rather than, say, murder or mugging etc. Now how many people would actively approve of littering the park in that way? Not many I would hope. But how many would actively seek out the police to make a formal complaint? Over here I doubt it would be much more than 20%.

"And according to the poll, a mere 23% of the people would complain. Hardly a majority."

No. But a whopping 57% reported they would have a serious negative reaction and a further 19% a mildly negative reaction. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

"By the way, stu, mean age is the average age of the respondents. You take the ages of everyone, add them up, and divide them by the number of respondents."

Ah! It just means the average. OK. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

aunaturelone

"..essentially said they didn't like what they saw but it wasn't worth the effort to force the nudes out or to force them to dress. They'd just move to a different location, "problem" solved. (Ain't freedom wonderful?)"

You'd get the same reaction to a drunk shouting obscenities in the park, but that doesn't mean the behaviour is acceptable, does it?

LakeSuperiorNude

Some fair questions and you are right that the poll has its limitations. York is a medium-sized city but it is very dependent on tourism both from overseas and the rest of the UK. The races are well-known nationally and attended by people from across the country. The same applies to visitors of the National Railway Museum. York is also a university city and any survey in the centre would without any doubt catch the views of a good number of students. That might explain the low average age. The residents of the city vary enormously in terms of their education - everyone from professors to farm labourers.

I'm hoping that when Ryan has finished his project he'll send me some more data about the people who took part.

"In my mind it is not a valid survey."

It's far from perfect but can you point to a better one? I mean one conducted by a respected research establishment or academic?

Bob S.

"An extra comment. Why wasn't there a possibility of asking the naked couple to clothe themselves?"

That could have been asked. But I was only allowed one question and it's hard to get every possibility into it.

Stu

Rik

12-08-2003, 01:40 PM

Stu,

If I can just add my tuppence worth.

The issue which you have based all your arguments on is that the majority of people think public nudity is so shocking that it should therefore be illegal (or continue to be illegal if you prefer).

On the basis of your results only 23% agree with you that public nudity should be reported to the authorities. Others may be embarrassed or shocked but not to the extent that they are concerned enough to want to report it. You might argue that those people still think it should be illegal even if they aren't concerned enough to report it themselves but that is putting an interpetation onto the results simply to support yur own view.

Given that this survey was comissioned by a staunch anti-nudist then, as you've pointed put yourself in regard to surveys, we should probably discount the results further. So if we knock off say 10% then we get down to truer figure of about 15% who would be so alarmed that they would whish to report it to the authorities. Hardly overwhelming support for your view! (Don't you just love statistics? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Of course the reality is that because most people don't encounter much public nudity these results are only supposition on the part of the respondents and do not necessarily reflect how they would actually react. So the only true way to find out how members of the public would react is for them to actually experience it. What about a picnic in Hyde Park? Purely in the intersts of research of course.

Anecdotal evidence from those who practise public nudity suggests that most people who witness it don't appear to be bothered by it - certainly not enough to call the police although there's always the exception to prove the rule!

Anyway thanks for posting the results. Now what about that naturist swim I promised you. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

aunaturelone

12-08-2003, 01:54 PM

A drunk shouting obscenities in the park is an obvious threat to the public safety. Obscenties are generally considered fighting words. Drunkeness is a state of diminished capacity wherein people are more likely to become violent, get into accidents, cause accidents, etc. Drunkeness plus shouting obscenties equals a clear threat to the physical well being of anyone the drunk encounters.

I suspect you'd get a MUCH more negative reaction to a drunk person shouting obscenities in the park. Instead of only 23% reporting the event, perhaps only 23% wouldn't and the people who left his vicinity would approach 100%.

Hmmm... what if it were a jolly drunk in a Santa Suit shouting Merry Christmas? Just as drunk. Just as loud.

As far as negative reactions go, option B was not a "serious" negative reaction. People who selected option B clearly understood their own reaction to be a personal distaste and that the nudity was't worthy of official suppresion. Challenging the person or calling the authorities is a serious negative reaction. At most it is an annoyance. If you can't work up the energy to use a call box, call phone, pay phone or whatever, you obviously don't think the person either needs to be stopped or deserves to be locked up.

People will generally report a crime when they see a crime and they think the crime they see geniunely ought to be a crime. In essence, the people who selected option B accepted the right of the nude people to behave in a way they found distasteful. They realize the importance of sharing the park with those they disagree with. Since it is their personal distaste and not some fundamental rule of good and evil that is causing the problem, they quite rightly excercise their own right to leave for a different location. The problem is 100% resolved without law enforcement ever being involved.

Really no different that we would have seen 40 years ago in the States if an interacial couple were to walk through a park hugging and holding hands. Or 20 years ago if a gay couple were to do the same thing.

This is how an adult of good will resolves a matter of personal prejudice. A child (or an adult with serious control issues) demands that his or her prejudices be made the law of the land so that all must share.

Everyone has a right to behave in a distateful or even disgusting manner. The question of legal and illegal should hinge upon objective notions of harm; bodily integrity, physical pain, private property rights, public safety, etc. Temporary emotional distress isn't included in the list.

12-08-2003, 02:52 PM

Rik

"On the basis of your results only 23% agree with you that public nudity should be reported to the authorities."

No, Rik, it was a practical question in which people were given a scenario - i.e. what WOULD (not SHOULD) you do. So people first imagine the scenario - a park they know, the responsiveness etc of the local police, their own tendency to be willing to involve themselves, step forward and give evidence etc. They then answer by reporting what they think they would actually do. Try to imagine the response you would get if you asked the simple question "Do you think nudity should be lawful in all parks in the UK?". Now that would, in my book, be a perfectly legitimate question. And I have little doubt that virtually everybody who answered (a), (b) and (c) would answer with a resounding "No"! I will ask Ryan if he can sound out other students doing similar projects and let's see if we can get an answer to that one.

"Given that this survey was comissioned by a staunch anti-nudist then, as you've pointed put yourself in regard to surveys, we should probably discount the results further".

Have you forgotten that YOU andothers here helped me to formulate the question and suggested answers? If I remember correctly it was you who told me that I shouldn't say "STARK NAKED" - so I took out the capitals and word "stark" at your suggestion.

"Of course the reality is that because most people don't encounter much public nudity these results are only supposition on the part of the respondents and do not necessarily reflect how they would actually reac...".

But most people have never been mugged but the can make a guess about how they wold react to that. And people have seen, and do see, nakedness.

"What about a picnic in Hyde Park? Purely in the intersts of research of course."

That's a bit dodgy. The police are bound to find out about it in advance and put the dampers on it.

"Anecdotal evidence from those who practise public nudity suggests that most people who witness it don't appear to be bothered by it - certainly not enough to call the police although there's always the exception to prove the rule!"

There you go again - 'anecdotal evidence'. I've given you an impartial survey result - I know it was far from perfect but it does constitute empirical evidence of a sort and you're preferring anecdotes. The fact that people don't appear to be botherd doesn't mean they like it.

"Anyway thanks for posting the results. Now what about that naturist swim I promised you."

I've got this terrible backache - and my knee hurts. My doc says I must take it easy so I'd better put it off for a bit longer. Sorry. (That's not me chickening out, by the way.)

aunaturelone

"A drunk shouting obscenities in the park is an obvious threat to the public safety. Obscenties are generally considered fighting words."

Before Mr Gough had walked his first 10 miles he was set upon and beaten senseless. Regardless of motive (sexual or not), where I live a grown man exposing his genitals to women and children in public would be highly inflammatory - far more so than any drunk!

"Drunkeness is a state of dinimished capacity..."

Exactly. That's why people would be more likely to just ignore him. After all - who hasn't been drunk at some time and made an *** of themselves?

".. wherein people are more likely to become violent, get into accidents, cause accidents, etc. Drunkeness plus shouting obscenties equals a clear threat to the well being of anyone the drunk encounters."

The vast majority of drunks I encounter aren't violent. Even the loud ones - singing filthy rugby songs at the top of their voices. Most people put up with them until they wander off but that doesn't mean they like or approve of how they are behaving. And they would definitely expect the police to deal with them if they were in the viscinity.

"I suspect you'd get a MUCH more negative reaction to a drunk person shouting obscenities in the park. Instead of only 23% reporting the event, perhaps only 23% wouldn't and the people who left his vicinity would approach 100%"

You may be right as far as your neighbourhood is concerned, but where I live drunks in parks are far from uncommon. Indeed I know of a couple who frequent my local park (usually drinking strong cider or sherry)! People rarely take the trouble to phone the police when they are there. Instead they mention it to the community constable the next time they happen to see him on patrol and he then gives the park some extra attention. I don't think that would be untypical. But get naked in my park and see how long it would be before the police were called!! I would confidently expect you to be in custody within 20 minutes of taking your underpants off.

In reality I would expect many of those who answered (b) would probably call the police when they got home. I feel sure that many, if not most, would complain if the nudists became a regular feature at the park. Unfortunately I can't prove that any more than you can prove what you said.

Whichever way you look at it the overwhelming majority responded to the survey in a way that showed they viewed the behaviour negatively - they were at the very least made to feel uncomfortable. We have a responsibility not to inflict negative emotions on people who are trying to enjoy the public places they are entitled to use. The law has a responsibility to punish those who disregard theirs in this respect.

Stu

Bob S.

12-08-2003, 06:31 PM

"People obviously think they have a right not to be offended. I rest my case."

You may want to keep that case of yours. Just because people believe something does not make it so.

"Even with that humidity, what's so detrimental about putting on a pair of cotton shorts? Or wrapping a sarong around your middle?"

You will never get it stu. Clothing can be a hinderance.

"Mr Steve Gough is conducting such an experiment."

And we can assume that only 23% of those who saw him called the police.

"I don't know how Americans interpret the sentence "I would feel embarrassed or shocked and would walk away quickly.""

It matters only the people who read the poll. And I am simply saying that there could be some non-negative ways that the answer can be interpreted. Being embarassed can be akin to walking in on two people having sex on a hiking trail. The person could feel embarassed at seeing the two and walk away quickly trying to find somewhere else to go. Not upset, but actually able to laugh at it after he was out of earshot of the couple.

And I am also looking at the behaviour, which in my opinion, speaks volumes. Walking away means that the person does not feel it necessary to find any authorities. Instead, they have simply decided to find somewhere else to go.

This poll is flawed as it has both an emotional reaction and a physical reaction and we cannot differentiate between who chose based on both responses, who chose based on the emotional response, and who chose based on the physical response.

The 19% is neutral. And I stil believe that choice b) could have been interpreted in many ways.

"It's far from perfect but can you point to a better one? I mean one conducted by a respected research establishment or academic?"

None that you will accept.

"Try to imagine the response you would get if you asked the simple question "Do you think nudity should be lawful in all parks in the UK?" "

stu, that is not a legitimate question. No legitimate questions have absoolutes in them. "Do you think nudity should be lawful in some parks" would be a better question.

I would also like to know what Ryan's credentials are as well. You tout these as "empiracal results" so I would like to know more about Ryan. What survey this class was for, and what his grade on this survey was.

Bob S.

Jochanaan

12-08-2003, 08:38 PM

Remember that pre-election polls are notoriously inaccurate. That's the difference between what people think they would do in a hypothetical situation, and what they actually do, or have done.

And how can we find out what people would actually do in a situation? The only reliable way is to create the situation. That is why I believe Mr. Gough is doing a positive thing: he's creating a situation in which nudity appears in unexpected places. Maybe a better indicator of how people actually behave would be to interview people who saw Mr. Gough. There must be many, and of those perhaps a significant number would be willing to state their opinion in an anonymous poll.

missouriboy

12-09-2003, 04:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"By the way, stu, mean age is the average age of the respondents. You take the ages of everyone, add them up, and divide them by the number of respondents."

Ah! It just means the average. OK. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not so. The average is one thing, and the mean is another; they are not synonymous. Bob's formula for 'average' is correct, but 'mean' means the midpoint: One half are lower and the other half are higher. Example: if 5 respondents are 21, 26, 30, 49, and 60, the average age is 37.2 but the mean is 30.

IIRC someone else already mentioned this earlier in this thread.

missouriboy

12-09-2003, 04:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by aunaturelone:
This is how an adult of good will resolves a matter of personal prejudice. A child (or an adult with serious control issues) demands that his or her prejudices be made the law of the land so that all must share.

Everyone has a right to behave in a distasteful or even disgusting manner. The question of legal and illegal should hinge upon objective notions of harm; bodily integrity, physical pain, private property rights, public safety, etc. Temporary emotional distress isn't included in the list. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, common sense raises its reasonable voice yet again. I would even be less charitable and change the verb "demands" to "whines."

OTOH, I don't know as I'd say everyone has a "right" to be disgusting. They do have the right to be human, and occasionally some things that everyone eventually does, intentional or not, will be perceived as disgusting (offensive, if you will) by some other, unpredictable and unknowable, person. And this should NOT be attempted to be codified in law as making the "offender" a criminal unless, as you say, it causes measurable harm or damage to the "offendee."

Rik

12-09-2003, 05:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>No, Rik, it was a practical question in which people were given a scenario - i.e. what WOULD (not SHOULD) you do. So people first imagine the scenario - a park they know, the responsiveness etc of the local police, their own tendency to be willing to involve themselves, step forward and give evidence etc. They then answer by reporting what they think they would actually do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you mean you asked the wrong question and are now trying to put your own interpretation on the way the respondents arrived at their answers?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Try to imagine the response you would get if you asked the simple question "Do you think nudity should be lawful in all parks in the UK?". Now that would, in my book, be a perfectly legitimate question. And I have little doubt that virtually everybody who answered (a), (b) and (c) would answer with a resounding "No"! ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There you go again asserting your theory that the world and his wife is so shocked, offended and distressed at the sight of the naked body that they would actually shout the answer at you if you asked the question.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Have you forgotten that YOU andothers here helped me to formulate the question and suggested answers? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No I haven't forgotten but that doesn't mean that it wasn't you that comissioned the survey and, of course, had the last word on how the questions were worded.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>But most people have never been mugged but the can make a guess about how they wold react to that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg to differ on this. Yes they can guess how they'd react but that doesn't mean that they would actually react in that way. Some may guess that they'd try to fight off the mugger but there's no way of knowing what would happen in reality. Equally of course those who answered the question indicating that they weren't bothered may in fact be shocked when actuall faced with public nudity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
"Anecdotal evidence from those who practise public nudity suggests that most people who witness it don't appear to be bothered by it - certainly not enough to call the police although there's always the exception to prove the rule!"

There you go again - 'anecdotal evidence'. I've given you an impartial survey result - I know it was far from perfect but it does constitute empirical evidence of a sort and you're preferring anecdotes. The fact that people don't appear to be botherd doesn't mean they like it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was not suggesting that I prefer anecdotes - far from it - I was suggesting that as the only true way of finding out how people would react to public nudity was to let them experience it and as anecdotal evidence suggests it's not such a terrible thing then perhaps a picnic in Hyde Park where the police don't outnumber the picnicers might be a way of proving or disproving both the survey results and the anecdotal evidence.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>"Anyway thanks for posting the results. Now what about that naturist swim I promised you."

I've got this terrible backache - and my knee hurts. My doc says I must take it easy so I'd better put it off for a bit longer. Sorry. (That's not me chickening out, by the way.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wimp!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Whichever way you look at it the overwhelming majority responded to the survey in a way that showed they viewed the behaviour negatively - they were at the very least made to feel uncomfortable. We have a responsibility not to inflict negative emotions on people who are trying to enjoy the public places they are entitled to use. The law has a responsibility to punish those who disregard theirs in this respect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If everything in life which was 'uncomfortable' was subject to legal sanction then it would be an ideal world to live in. But an ideal world would cater for the comfort of everyone and not just those who claim to have a monopoly on it. Regretably we live in the real world where discomfort is... well just uncomfortable.

Stu

aunaturelone

12-09-2003, 12:06 PM

So, in practical terms, a person exercising their right to free speech in the US would be treated less favourably if what hey were saying caused offence.

Not at all. You have a right to say offensive things. Hustler magazine has the same right to free speech as anyone else. You can't treat the content less favorably simply because you don't like it.

Free speech limitations in this country are extremely rare and limited. Libel, slander, child pornography, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, fraud and making viable threats of violence are the main limitations. Note that every limitation requires that harm of an economic or physical sort to occur or likely to occur. Children are legally presumed to be incapable of consenting to illegal sexual activity, hence the harm. "Simulated" child porngraphy is still allowed.

Unlike England, in the US truth is an absolute defense against a libel or slander suit, no matter how offensive or malicious the words are. In England, even if the offensive language is true, it can still be slander or libel.

Where people try to implement "hate speech" regulations (political correctness) they are consistantly defeated when challenged in the courts. Offensive speech is the ONLY speech that needs protection. Inoffensive speech needs no protection at all.

aunaturelone

12-09-2003, 12:31 PM

Try to imagine the response you would get if you asked the simple question "Do you think nudity chould be lawful in certain well desginated sections of parks in the UK?". Now that would, in my book, be a perfectly legitimate question. And I have little doubt that virtually everybody who answered (b), (c) and (d) would answer with a YES.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Before Mr Gough had walked his first 10 miles he was set upon and beaten senseless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Obviously those assailants are emotionally disturbed criminals and need to be restrained for public safety. I should hope Mr Gough filed a civil action against the miscreants and was generously compensated.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>That's why people would be more likely to just ignore him. After all - who hasn't been drunk at some time and made an *** of themselves? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A sober person is a less dangerous than a drunk. A sober person is less likely to wander into traffic or get into a car and cause an accident, has greater control over their emotions and therefore less likely to start a fight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Even the loud ones - singing filthy rugby songs at the top of their voices. Most people put up with them until they wander off but that doesn't mean they like or approve of how they are behaving. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's not the image I get when imagining a drunk shouting obescenties. Violent and dangerous creatures, those, accosting and assaulting anyone who dares come too close. Every once in a while you'll see one at the park or the beach, screaming and cursing at passersby. Had to tackle one of those once, long ago when I worked private security at a pharmacy and he came in all beligerant and belicose and assaulted the girl behind the hard liquor counter.

If OTOH you mean a sports team that has gotten a bit tipsy and rowdy, I've been there and done that. On a college campus. I've had other, sober, kids join in the singing.

Bob S.

12-09-2003, 06:23 PM

missouri,

Mean is the average. Median is the middle. In your example, 37.2 is the mean, the median is 30. But just to be curious. What is IIRC?

Now pertaining to how the people read the scenario, let's look at stu's example of a drunk person shouting obscenitites at a local park. We all had different ideas of what a drunk looked like and how he acted. stu imagined the "friendly" drunk who was offesive but harmless. aunaturel thinks of a drunk as someone capable of more violent behaviour. That is a similar thought I had; a man who is cursing and trying to pick fights. Not exactly a friendly person.

"So people first imagine the scenario - a park they know, the responsiveness etc of the local police, their own tendency to be willing to involve themselves, step forward and give evidence etc. They then answer by reporting what they think they would actually do."

This is what stu said. They have to imagine all of that before coming up with a possibility, and of course, they had to choose what they would do or think or both. They also have their own stereotype of "two adults walking naked". Are they a man and a woman? Two men? Two women? Another scenario too sinister to think of? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

And they also must go through their own experiences. A rape victim may have more of a negative reaction than a newspaper reporter. A page 5 (is it page 5--the tabloid covergirl ?) purveyour woud answer differently than a preacher.

So we do not have an accurate portayal of the scene anyway. Too many different ideas of who the two people are, how they are walking, their facial expressions, what their intentions are (people do think about this). I argued exactly what Jochanaan mentioned, that the hypothetical situations are impossible to guess what you would do. The scenes can change too much. Hypothetical scenarios usually only happen in teh hypothetical world, rarely as accurately as in the real world. And believe me about that. I have a permanent vacation home in the world of the hypothetical.

Bob S.

missouriboy

12-10-2003, 02:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
missouri,

Mean is the average. Median is the middle. In your example, 37.2 is the mean, the median is 30. But just to be curious. What is IIRC?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I'll be darned... you were right and I was only half-right. [[eats humble pie]] But mean has two definitions, so they still aren't exactly synonymous.

Merriam-Webster: AVERAGE is exactly or approximately the quotient obtained by dividing the sum total of a set of figures by the number of figures (scored an average of 85 on tests). MEAN may be the simple average or it may represent value midway between two extremes (a high of 70? and a low of 50? give a mean of 60?). MEDIAN applies to the value that represents the point at which there are as many instances above as there are below (average of a group of persons earning 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 dollars a day is 6 dollars, whereas the median is 5 dollars).

So from now on, I'll consider mean to be ambiguous, and wonder "What in H does that guy mean, anyhow?" /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So, right about now I'm reluctant to swear to ANYTHING, but I think IIRC means /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif "If I Remember Correctly." When I went back to Page 1 to review what I thought I remembered, I was wrong again! Then I went and checked my biorythm chart and, wow, is my Intellectual curve ever low right now! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif