jawapunk Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 I actually went to an international school in Jakarta Indonesia. It was American curriculum but also had the I.B. program. I went to school with around 350-400 american kids and noticed that many of them were forced to take American History to get into colleges back home and that AP classes in that regard was Advanced American History. This isn't to say there weren't Americans in my IB higher class, but there were only a couple. Please tell me all about your "world Leader" classes, I am fascinated. I am not saying that these subjects are not covered but given very sparse attention which is why as the question given to Ms. South Carolina implies, Americans are in general terrible at geography. So bad in fact that many cannot find their own country on a world map. And her answer was telling as well. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...operSurvey.html This article says that most countries do poorly on geography but that the U.S. is almost illiterate in that capacity. Please do not skew my words, I am not saying all Americans are idiots or that you do not offer classes in world history, geography etc. I am saying that American classrooms place far more emphasis in American topics than international ones. This is true of Canadian classrooms as well but it seems that test scores are higher here in those areas. Quote Leg room, there is none.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 You have to admit there is a far more isolationist practice in America in regards to what news they cover, what is taught in public schools and general international knowledge such as geography, world leaders and world events. That is not to say we don't have ignorants in Canada but I believe Ms. Teen Sotuh Carolina proved this point the most eloquently. This is a false notion...the US has multiple international media outlets with foreign coverage 24/7 (e.g. CNN International)...dwarfing anything that Canada has to offer. Same is true for post secondary international studies programs. Public schools still have varied language programs and travel. Lastly, many Americans come from around the world, far outnumbering Canadians from abroad. The Americans had no difficulty finding Iraq or Afghanistan. And I told another poster to stop it because he actually wasn't adding anything to the posting, which is pretty much what we are now doing as well. I am not sure of any irony being displayed here, I don't think I professed that ONLY America has citizens who were ignorant or self involved. And that poster told you to forgeddaboutit..unless you own the place. Why don't you go start a new posting about Bush's presidency for Americans to comment on if it has riled you up that much. No....how about a post on Canada's corrupt Liberal government...only Americans may comment. Silly idea, right? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jawapunk Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 (edited) Same is true for post secondary international studies programs. Wasn't talking about post-secondary scores, never even mentioned them. Talking about public schools (elementary and high) however the survey I used places the USA second to last in front of Mexico for 18-24 year olds which if I am not mistaken is exactly post-secondary ages. See you don't just count the people smart enough to get into post-secondary schools, you count everyone in the age range. So that anyone can become part of a sample. That is how you avoid skewed results, which you pretty much learn in any statistics class. And if people from the ages of 18-24 are that terrible at geography I am willing to bet the ages younger aren't faring much better if at all. Maybe U.S. Americans could help the children of the Iraq. The Americans had no difficulty finding Iraq or Afghanistan. Guess you didn't even read the national geographic article did you? In a nation called the world's superpower, only 17 percent of young adults in the United States could find Afghanistan on a map, according to a new worldwide survey released today. About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent. 69% of Americans between the ages of 18-24 can't find Great Britain on a map. Even if you take into account statistical error, that is still well over half. WOW Here is the link again so you can ignore it. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...operSurvey.html Edited November 22, 2007 by jawapunk Quote Leg room, there is none.
jawapunk Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 I also don't know what you are talking about in regards to news networks, I don't really mention them. But now that you bring it up, the US coverage of world events especially on CNN sucks. CNN International is pretty decent. I get CBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC World, MSNBC and a host of other news networks. Liek I said before they might air in the states but we get them here as well. The American networks pretty much cover American news, not that suprising you might say but there is far more international content on CBC and BBC...period. ANd if it is an election year, forget about it. Quote Leg room, there is none.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 Guess you didn't even read the national geographic article did you?69% of Americans between the ages of 18-24 can't find Great Britain on a map. Even if you take into account statistical error, that is still well over half. WOW If you know anything about stats, then you would know that you can't draw such a definitive population conclusion based on the sample size and/or distribution function. Does the 18-24 year old American geography demographic follow a normal distribution, or something altogether different? I'm sure that geography goes lacking in many settings.....and the modern answer for where is Great Britain on a map? = Google...something else those stupid Americans thought of. Based on your own admission of American studies, American presidents, and consumption of American media, I'd say that the "dumb" students are not unexpected at all. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 (edited) I also don't know what you are talking about in regards to news networks, I don't really mention them. But now that you bring it up, the US coverage of world events especially on CNN sucks. CNN International is pretty decent. I get CBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC World, MSNBC and a host of other news networks. Liek I said before they might air in the states but we get them here as well. The American networks pretty much cover American news, not that suprising you might say but there is far more international content on CBC and BBC...period. ANd if it is an election year, forget about it. The American media networks (plural) provide far more international coverage than domestic based Canadian outlets. Much of what I see in Canadian news media is just regurgitated from the Mothership's news sources. CNN International is an American network based in Atlanta, London, and Hong Kong..it can be found in over 200 countries. Canadian outlets do not offer similar production content in North America, and lacks the infrastructure to do so. However, Canada does have the CRTC to block domestic print and broadcast media domination by those "stupid" Americans and the content Canadians can't get enough of. Edited November 22, 2007 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jazzer Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 (edited) If you're referring to the sponsorship deal, there wasn't a single sitting Liberal MP charged of any wrongdoing. Maybe try watching something other than Fox news. Edited November 22, 2007 by jazzer Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 [quote name='bush_cheney2004' date='Nov 21 2007, 06:48 PM' post='271592'....how about a post on Canada's corrupt Liberal government...If you're referring to the sponsorship deal, there wasn't a single sitting Liberal MP charged of any wrongdoing. Maybe try watching something other than Fox news. No, that's old corruption..how 'bout some new corruption: Now, a member of the Grit caucus has been accused of campaign spending irregularities and a host of dodgy business deals by his own father-in-law. Mr. Dion must feel like former prime minister Robert Borden, who, as he watched the Parliament Buildings burn to the ground in 1916, mused: "What else can happen to this goddamn government?" - The Spade Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jawapunk Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 (edited) Good job on hijacking the thread, your namesakes would be proud. The survey was completed by Natinal Geographic who have been a well respected magazine for a hundred years or so selling millions of copies worldwide. I'm pretty sure they also understand statistics and that yes an assumption of normal distribution must be drawn to make a statement about a population as a whole. I am also sure that given the level of error they were hpoing for they came up with a sample size to meet their needs mathematically. But if you don't believe them you shoudl probably write a letter stating inconsistencies and demand a retraction. However, they will probably more than happily show you where they got their statistical information from. As far as the international coverage on American networks, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one as I watch both on a regular basis. CNN International (Which you don't actually get within the States) is quality I will give them that, but as for the rest pretty scare other than updates on Iraq etc... I wasn't talking about small regional networks either, jesus....those suck worldwide. Edited November 22, 2007 by jawapunk Quote Leg room, there is none.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 Good job on hijacking the thread, your namesakes would be proud. But you stayed on topic..right? LOL! The survey was completed by Natinal Geographic who have been a well respected magazine for a hundred years or so selling millions of copies worldwide. I'm pretty sure they also understand statistics and that yes an assumption of normal distribution must be drawn to make a statement about a population as a whole. I am also sure that given the level of error they were hpoing for they came up with a sample size to meet their needs mathematically. And I'm sure they didn't do a damn thing in regards to hard core statistics for the article. The National Geographic folks want to sell subscriptions to dinosaur media.....go figure. They did not substantiate the survey's design or analysis with respect to sampling, randomness, or distribution function. I suspect it was an "unscientific" survey. But if you don't believe them you shoudl probably write a letter stating inconsistencies and demand a retraction. However, they will probably more than happily show you where they got their statistical information from. Why would I do that? You have embraced and authenticated their findings to the tune of 69% of American 18-24 year olds....does that include the ones actually in Afghaniststan? As far as the international coverage on American networks, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one as I watch both on a regular basis. CNN International (Which you don't actually get within the States) is quality I will give them that, but as for the rest pretty scare other than updates on Iraq etc... I wasn't talking about small regional networks either, jesus....those suck worldwide. Patently false....CNN International is offered in numerous American media markets via cable or satellite. Here's an example cable outlet from...omigawd...North Carolina: http://www.timewarnercable.com/PiedmontTri...gitaltier1.html Canadian news media production offers nothing remotely equivalent on a global scale. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jawapunk Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 (edited) I really don't understand you Bush... you get caught making crap statements and not reading the survey data then instead of admitting you were wrong you attack the credibility of the survey and that of National Geographic. It is ok to be wrong sometimes...it happens. Edited November 22, 2007 by jawapunk Quote Leg room, there is none.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 (edited) I really don't understand you Bush... you get caught making crap statements and not reading the survey data then instead of admitting you were wrong you attack the credibility of the survey and that of National Geographic. It is ok to be wrong sometimes...it happens. Yea....it happens a lot to you! The survey data was not provided with the article.....in god we trust...all others bring data. Tell everybody again about the States not getting CNN International......and continue telling us more about Americans...their media, their education system, their president....their whatever that seems to attract your attention. Edited November 22, 2007 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jawapunk Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 Well I atleast attempted to stay on topic but it keeps getting pushed aside. Yes the sample in theory could include those that are in Afghanistan, that is why it is called a random sample. Of course I am sure they would be within the 31% who could place it on a map(one would hope.) I'm not sure why you are blasting National Geographic so hard. They are afterall an American company...and I don't think they or any other well respected magazine or or journalistic periodical could profi from printing garbage. They aren't the National Enquirer afterall. I believe Time has printed similar surveys in the past. However I couldn't find them on their website. Give me a break with your assed theory on National Geographics survey methods. Before you spout that kind of crap off you shoudl back it up with something at least. That is just total misdirection on your part. Even your namesakes could do better than that. You can "suspect" all you want to, but back it up. Jeez. Sorry about the CNN International, my sister lives in Atlanta and said she couldn't get it. See how I did that though, admit I am wrong like that? Makes you wonder if I might have done that on purpose? Hmmmmm.....tricky. As far as having opinions on Americans and America I'll continue to have whatever opinions I damn well please, just as you seem to have regarding Canada. The last time I checked America wasn't some secret club that you had to be a member to comment upon its inner workings. I have been to the States on numerous occasions, gone to an American curriculum school, have many American friends from high school and from visits. My brother in law is from Tennessee for Christs's sake. By the way, I'll spell it out for you, I don't understand how you can be so ignorant all the time, but I know it is on purpose and you are simply an antagonist. That is cool. Although debate is healthier when some concensus is reached...you don't really know how to do that, you simply misdirect and dismiss. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper200...ogLitsurvey.pdf Here is the final report discussing the survey. Sorry to say this but it makes everything you just said about it pretty idiotic. Quote Leg room, there is none.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 Well I atleast attempted to stay on topic but it keeps getting pushed aside. ...but you didn't..actually. Yes the sample in theory could include those that are in Afghanistan, that is why it is called a random sample.... Do you really think they sampled 18-24 year old Americans in Afghanistan? I think not. Give me a break with your assed theory on National Geographics survey methods. Before you spout that kind of crap off you shoudl back it up with something at least. That is just total misdirection on your part. Even your namesakes could do better than that. You can "suspect" all you want to, but back it up. Jeez. What namesakes? You're dealing with me...not the entire Bush administration. Sorry about the CNN International, my sister lives in Atlanta and said she couldn't get it. See how I did that though, admit I am wrong like that? Makes you wonder if I might have done that on purpose? Hmmmmm.....tricky. Yes...you were very tricky to post in such a way to prove how much you know about America and Americans. As far as having opinions on Americans and America I'll continue to have whatever opinions I damn well please, just as you seem to have regarding Canada. The last time I checked America wasn't some secret club that you had to be a member to comment upon its inner workings. I have been to the States on numerous occasions, gone to an American curriculum school, have many American friends from high school and from visits. My brother in law is from Tennessee for Christs's sake. I know, I know...that's what they all eventually say/admit. Thanks for proving American Woman's point. By the way, I'll spell it out for you, I don't understand how you can be so ignorant all the time, but I know it is on purpose and you are simply an antagonist. That is cool. Although debate is healthier when some concensus is reached...you don't really know how to do that, you simply misdirect and dismiss. I do OK on these forums....my posting style is purposeful and very good for ratings. I'm not here to kiss your ass. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jawapunk Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 Done reading the survey results? You can apologize ANYTIME. I'll start, I'm sorry you were wrong in this particular case. The survey was legitimate and followed statistical protocols to ensure a low amount of error. Wow, that felt great.... Quote Leg room, there is none.
jawapunk Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 Also, I am sure they didn't survey any American serving in Iraq either, but that does not mean the results are garbage. Considering there are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where your troops are serving and shoule have international attention on the great news converage you keep talking about, you think more people would be able to place it on a damn map. Quote Leg room, there is none.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 Done reading the survey results? You can apologize ANYTIME. I'll start, I'm sorry you were wrong in this particular case. The survey was legitimate and followed statistical protocols to ensure a low amount of error. Wow, that felt great.... The survey excluded the population of Alaska and Hawaii and did not include Afghanistan (or anywhere outside the continental US where one might find males/females interested in geography...accordingly, the survey results are not applicable to all American 18-24 year olds. Also, the sample size looks to be too small (<600) for the population size and a reasonable confidence interval to the 95% confidence level. No apology..but it was still fun. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jawapunk Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 I don't know where you studied statistics but the sample size is more than adequate. When we do not know the population standard deviation a t* statisitc can be used to make statements about the population mean. The only assumption required is that the sample is drawn from the population which is normally distributed. If the standard deviation was known the Z* test statistic can be used and still the population is still large enough. I'm not sure how you can dismiss any of the findings as you don't have the information necessary. However if you can mathematically dispute the findings in a hypothesis test please do, and post them. I'll take it to my stats professor tomorrow and see what we can do with it. However if you are just making more crap statements you can stop now. Not sure but since Alaska is part of North America isn't it then included in a continental United States? I can see how Hawaii wouldn't be. Quote Leg room, there is none.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 (edited) I don't know where you studied statistics but the sample size is more than adequate. When we do not know the population standard deviation a t* statisitc can be used to make statements about the population mean. The only assumption required is that the sample is drawn from the population which is normally distributed. But that is the point...no attempt was made to qualify the sample size. We don't even know how many of the random sample households refused survey. There are ways to overcome this, but nothing was described in the report. I don't need a stats professor...I use statistics in the real world to develop sampling plans. Too often, survey designers get lazy and assume away expensive inconveniences, starting with the normal distribution function. Not sure but since Alaska is part of North America isn't it then included in a continental United States? I can see how Hawaii wouldn't be. The survey report clearly stated that Alaska and Hawaii were not included. Maybe you should read it. Edited November 22, 2007 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 Considering there are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where your troops are serving and shoule have international attention on the great news converage you keep talking about, you think more people would be able to place it on a damn map. Why? You are making a common mistake....the thrust of the NG article was that geography has become less relevant for many people, not just Americans. Maybe they just don't give a damn either way....such is their right. Can you name all the places Canadian Forces have served in for the past 25 years? And find them on a map? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jawapunk Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 (edited) Actually it states in the back there was one refusal. Now as to sample sizes. If we take one answer that 63% cannot find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map and If we want 95% confidence with errors of +/- 0.05 (%) that is 5%. Pretty standard error. Z= 1.96 at 95% confidence and sample size is n = (1.96)^2 (0.63)(0.37) / (0.05)^2 = 0.8955 / 0.0025 =358.2 or 359 people surveyed. Well within the bounds of this survey. Ummm I did read the survey, the methodology, the results, and the highlights as it were. Still waiting for a mathematical dismissal because it looks to me like this survey is completly legitimate. I think your refusal to admit anything is amusing but also kind of pathetic. As to your question, I can find pretty much anything on a map, it would be hard to test me over the damn internet forum however. Edited November 22, 2007 by jawapunk Quote Leg room, there is none.
jawapunk Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 (edited) Seems like you need a refresher course then guy. And if you don't and use statistics ona daily basis you shoudl have no trouble doing a simple hypothesis test on the survey data. You know the survey size, the population proportions based on yes or no answers. Edited November 22, 2007 by jawapunk Quote Leg room, there is none.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 (edited) Actually it states in the back there was one refusal.Now as to sample sizes. If we take one answer that 63% cannot find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map and If we want 95% confidence with errors of +/- 0.05 (%) that is 5%. Pretty standard error. Z= 1.96 at 95% confidence and sample size is n = (1.96)^2 (0.63)(0.37) / (0.05)^2 = 0.8955 / 0.0025 =358.2 or 359 people surveyed. Well within the bounds of this survey. But we know the population size = 30,000,000 and you have not established the distribution function. One question basis is not sufficient. Surely you must know that survey refusals/nonresponses must be handled with extra work (e.g. substitution / multiple imputation). Ummm I did read the survey, the methodology, the results, and the highlights as it were. Still waiting for a mathematical dismissal because it looks to me like this survey is completly legitimate. I think your refusal to admit anything is amusing but also kind of pathetic. Then why did you ask about Alaska? As to your question, I can find pretty much anything on a map, it would be hard to test me over the damn internet forum however. The point was not to test you, but test your assinine contention about what 18-24 year olds in the continental United States should care about (while others are actually in Afghanistan with no doubts about their location on a map). Edited November 22, 2007 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jawapunk Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 (edited) That was not the point of the damn survey. I'm pretty well sure the people who are in Afghanistan as well as their families know where they are, which would place them IF SURVEYED within the population who CAN find it on a map. The fact is in a random samle of 18-24 year old Americans more can't than can. Of course we know the total population size, but since the entire populaton cannot be surveyed that is what statistical inferences are used for. They are based on mathematical principles. If you know as much as you say you do about statistics then this should be obvious. And approximately 600 people is more than enough to make those inferences with a 95% degree of confidence. Edited November 22, 2007 by jawapunk Quote Leg room, there is none.
jawapunk Posted November 22, 2007 Report Posted November 22, 2007 (edited) Must I remind you, it is not my "asinine" contention. It is based on a survvey conducted by National Geographic. Edited November 22, 2007 by jawapunk Quote Leg room, there is none.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.