Study finds Tories polite, NDP uncivil in house

[Scotty]

The soft sciences are having a little meeting called the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, and released some research the other day on civility during Question Period. This is a topic on which we heard quite a bit over the last couple of years, with opposition supporters lamenting how rude and uncivil the government is. Only it isn't. The social science types - who one would not expect to be highly supportive of Tories - found the Tories to be more civil than the opposition. The worst offender in the house? Jack Layton. It also found that sixty percent of the questions posed were rhetorical.

House Civility

[fellowtraveller]

'social science' is an oxymoron. It may be social, but it ain't science.

[Sir Bandelot]

Civil in the house, as in their poker-faced, evasive statements. Uncivil outside of the house, as in doing things underhandedly, with partisan intent to undermine freedom and equality, which absolutely necessitates open, harsh criticism.

If the opposition must resort to yelling, it's because the Canadian people are too distracted to understand what's going on, and the government is not listening.

[Remiel]

It seems to me that this study is only a measure of those who are speaking in turn, and probably does not account for heckling. Which, if you read carefully, has been mentioned as a problem.

Until I can see the actual study for myself I would not be taking it for the whole truth. Civility, by itself, is not worth a whole Hell of a lot.

[Topaz]

I've watched QP since 2003 and its the Harper the PM that always sets the tone and he always the first to open his mouth and start the personal attacks going which casuses his members to stand up and clap for his remarks. I can't see it changing when the government doesn't want to answer a question they go to personal attacks. I've heard Jack a couple times with the personal attacks but most of the time he asks questions that Canadians would like to know the answer.

[PIK]

I've watched QP since 2003 and its the Harper the PM that always sets the tone and he always the first to open his mouth and start the personal attacks going which casuses his members to stand up and clap for his remarks. I can't see it changing when the government doesn't want to answer a question they go to personal attacks. I've heard Jack a couple times with the personal attacks but most of the time he asks questions that Canadians would like to know the answer.

I have watched it many times myself and it seems you only see what you want to see.

[Topaz]

I have watched it many times myself and it seems you only see what you want to see.

Sorry, but I had other people with me when we were trying to see who ACTUALLY started the personal attacks. Maybe your personal attacks and my personal attacks are different. What do you see, a calm, laid-back, always cheerful Tory party. They loves attacking and then set there looking at the people around them, saying I told them laughing and clapping their hands! Another one for us, boys!!

[CPCFTW]

Sorry, but I had other people with me when we were trying to see who ACTUALLY started the personal attacks. Maybe your personal attacks and my personal attacks are different. What do you see, a calm, laid-back, always cheerful Tory party. They loves attacking and then set there looking at the people around them, saying I told them laughing and clapping their hands! Another one for us, boys!!

Also they were high-fiving and crushing beer cans on their heads. I had people watching with me I swear!!

[Moonlight Graham]

'social science' is an oxymoron. It may be social, but it ain't science.

complete b.s. They utilize extensive empirical research/statistics and the scientific method as any science does.

Me thinks you need to check the actual definition of 'science'.

[RNG]

complete b.s. They utilize extensive empirical research/statistics and the scientific method as any science does.

Me thinks you need to check the actual definition of 'science'.

BS (Bad Science.) They do polls. Think about it.

[Bonam]

complete b.s. They utilize extensive empirical research/statistics and the scientific method as any science does.

They do try, but I too am skeptical of many studies in the field of social science. Due to the complexity of social systems and human behavior, there are almost always far more variables than experimenters even try to control for, and many more that they can't even think of or consider. Social science also relies heavily on methods known to produce dangerously skewed results, such as questionnaires, interviews, and self-reporting. Many studies in the social sciences also suffer from notoriously low sample size. Additionally, significant selection bias is inevitably introduced, and the subjects being studied are rarely representative in a meaningful way of the broader population. Further, the wording of statements and questions can be modified slightly to make the results fit with the experimenters own expectations or biases. Of all fields of science, social science is the softest and least reliable, and any study in this field should be viewed with a hearty serving of salt.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Bonam

[bloodyminded]

They do try, but I too am skeptical of many studies in the field of social science. Due to the complexity of social systems and human behavior, there are almost always far more variables than experimenters even try to control for, and many more that they can't even think of or consider. Social science also relies heavily on methods known to produce dangerously skewed results, such as questionnaires, interviews, and self-reporting. Many studies in the social sciences also suffer from notoriously low sample size. Additionally, significant selection bias is inevitably introduced, and the subjects being studied are rarely representative in a meaningful way of the broader population. Further, the wording of statements and questions can be modified slightly to make the results fit with the experimenters own expectations or biases. Of all fields of science, social science is the softest and least reliable, and any study in this field should be viewed with a hearty serving of salt.

I agree, and in fact, I think this has been generally recognized, with a few exceptions:

1. Sociology, which often has something of an activist bent to it;

2. The study of Literature, which has embraced esoteric and self-referential components of Poststructuralism, in order to be impossible to comprehend and so sets itself apart as "expert" intellectualism;

3. Economics, which hilariously believes that the use of math buttresses its often-inherently ideological components.

[Scotty]

If the opposition must resort to yelling, it's because the Canadian people are too distracted to understand what's going on, and the government is not listening.

Well, perhaps if 60% of the questions weren't rhetorical they'd have a better shot at an answer...

[Scotty]

They do try, but I too am skeptical of many studies in the field of social science. Due to the complexity of social systems and human behavior, there are almost always far more variables than experimenters even try to control for, and many more that they can't even think of or consider. Social science also relies heavily on methods known to produce dangerously skewed results, such as questionnaires, interviews, and self-reporting. Many studies in the social sciences also suffer from notoriously low sample size.

Granted. But none of that is a factor in this study, where they sat down and watched thousands of hours of live footage and graded the participants on a sliding scale of civility.

And they decided the opposition was less civil than the government and the majority of the questions weren't even looking for an answer.