73 replies to this topic

[phenom]

Greetings fellow immortalists,

I am planning to conduct a survey that examines peoples attitudes toward increasing human longevity.

Before I proceed with the research phase, I need to complete an evaluation phase. It would be prudent to have the questionnaire critiqued by those who have already given a considerable amount of thought to the many issues involved. That would be you folks.

The statements in the survey (pro & con) are divided into 5 categories. Please answer the following questions after reviewing the survey.

(1) Are there any additional distinct categories I've failed to identify?

(2) Are both sides of the argument fairly represented within each categroy?

(3) Are there other statements that more appropriately represent the categories than those which I've constructed and included in the survey?

(4) Are there any grammatical errors, typos, or poor phrasing that needs to be corrected?

(5) How would you change the survey to improve it?

(6) Where would you suggest I attempt to get people to respond to the survey that would be a represent sampling of the general population?

The survey is located at:

Longevity Attitudes Survey

Please DO NOT press the submit button at the end. The survey is not functional yet. I just want your evaluative feedback via this thread.

Thanks everyone.

Phenom

[Bruce Klein]

Very cool!

- Who will be your target audience for the survey?

- On Sex: Might add 'Other'

- I've always liked the question of "How long do you want to live?"

[phenom]

Very cool!

- Who will be your target audience for the survey?"

I'm interested in sampling two groups; (1) the general population and (2) Atheists in particular

Atheists in particular because I want to better understand why there isn't more interest in life extension given that they believe that death=oblivion. An example of a question I'll look at is, "Given the 5 categories of arguments I've identified, do Atheist's anti-longevity arguments fall into a different category than Theists?"

For the general population, I'll probably solicit from internet groups that have no apparent bias for or against longevity such as a finances-related group, music-related group, other hobby-related groups, etc.

I'm also considering soliciting from various groups that focus on particular illnesses (e.g. Diabetes) to see if these people differ from the general population in terms of their attitudes toward longevity.

Phenom

[Lazarus Long]

I just took the survey and ran into a few problems. It is not operating properly and the questions are behaving like they are mutually exclusive. Are they individual scalar selections or collectively mutually exclusive choices per section?

Also I would suggest the racial demographic offer bi/multiracial and Transhumanist options not just "other". When I am asked about racial background I will answer other and then when prompted for the explanation I put in Transhumanist.

I think adding a "health status" section would suffice but it is valid to test the subgroups independently too. Also I would ask for age to be in smaller increments or even exact so as to see how closely attitudes follow age demographics. From your questions it should be possible to simply isolate the results based on religious identification and it shouldn't be necessary to actually test the groups independently.

I also think you might want better data on where a respondent lives "now" but also where they are from "originally'. For example North America extends officially from Mexico to Alaska so not as much information is garnered as you might like from the answer. I also wonder how close a cultural identification might be attempted.

This is a wonderful project and I want to thank you for putting it together. Please share the results and progress with us as the project goes forward. Thanks.

[Jace Tropic]

phenom: Please DO NOT press the submit button at the end. The survey is not functional yet. I just want your evaluative feedback via this thread.

Laz: I just took the survey and ran into a few problems. It is not operating properly and the questions are behaving like they are mutually exclusive.

[bl:)]

[Lazarus Long]

Good point Jace, I did go directly there after clicking and didn't read the last paragraph. I feel thoroughly chastized now, mea culpa.

But for what it is worth the problem I am talking about occurs regardless of hitting the submit button.

[kevin]

Excellent Survey!

Under social issues I would add to the fear that jobs wouldn't be available

1) Wealth and resources would accumulate into the hands of a few
2) Increased risk of political stagnation bad governments staying in power ie. dictators sometimes have to die before they are replaced.

under Meaningfulness items 14 and 30 statements which can be agreed or disagreed would be preferable to questions.

under
"16. Life is too precious to waste. If we can extend life, we must. To desire to live is not selfish."

-as it is the only option which clearly reflects the view that desiring life isn't selfish.. I would modify it simply to read that life is precious and that to desire to live is not selfish. I don't think the corollary that we "MUST" extend life is necessarily true.

keep it up..! Look forward to linking to the final product..

[phenom]

Good suggestions so far. Thanks to all. I have also solicited feedback from several other parties with an interest in longevity and look forward to integrating and implementing the best suggestions. The final product should be very pretty strong. I'll run a test on a smaller sample to check the psychometrics like internal reliability and such.

Another reason I need to use a smaller sample first is that one hypothesis that I'm obviously putting forth here is that attitudes toward longevity fall into one of 5 categories (the 5 sub-scales in the survey). A factor analysis of the data from an initial sampling will help me determine whether that hypothesis is tenable. Then I can go for the larger sample.

What fun.

Phenom

[DJS]

Atheists in particular because I want to better understand why there isn't more interest in life extension given that they believe that death=oblivion. An example of a question I'll look at is, "Given the 5 categories of arguments I've identified, do Atheist's anti-longevity arguments fall into a different category than Theists?"

This is an area that interests me as well. I read this article here at Imminst a while back ( 'Towards a Philosophy of Immortality' by Marc Geddes) which helped me to better organized the most common objections to life extension. The three given in the article were: cartesian dualism, fatalism, and utilitarianism. Objections to life extension by atheists tend to be either fatalistic (I lump feasibility issues into this catagory) or utilitarian in nature.

Keep up the good work!

Don

[Mind]

I just have one style point.

I assume everyone taking the survey is fairly intelligent. Everyone probably knows the meaning of "Meaningfulness", however it is a bulky word. I would supplant that title with "The question of meaning" or "The question of purpose" or even "The search for meaning".

[phenom]

This is an area that interests me as well.  I read this article here at Imminst a while back ( 'Towards a Philosophy of Immortality'  by Marc Geddes) which helped me to better organized the most common objections to life extension.  The three given in the article were: cartesian dualism, fatalism, and utilitarianism.  Objections to life extension by atheists tend to be either fatalistic (I lump feasibility issues into this catagory) or utilitarian in nature.
Don

Thanks much Don. I just read the article. It appears to me the three objections Geddes' cites directly relate to three of the five categories of concerns in my survey.

By Dualism, he implies that people are concerned with the implications radical life extension will have for the supernatural component of being human. That matches my "Religious Concerns" section.

Referring to Fatalism, he says, "People simply don't believe that physical immortality is something that is possible." This corresponds to my "Feasibility Concerns" section.

Thirdly, Geddes refers to an objection he calls, "static views of human nature" which he describes by saying, "..would physical immortality be worthwhile or is there a good reason why human lifespan should be finite?". This idea seems to match my "Meaningfulness Concerns" section.

Factor analysis should reveal whether the 5 areas of concern that I've identified are truly independent factors or whether the items in the survey instead group into the 3 areas of concern that Geddes discusses.

Thanks again, Dan, and yes... Atheists are not likely to express dualistic concerns with respect to life extension.

(And so that I don't have to write another message. Thanks to Mind for the style point. I originally used Teleological Concerns as the title. Bad idea. I'll think on it.)

Phenom

[Bruce Klein]

Just a quick idea.. not a biggie.. but the bold times-new roman text is a little eye straining(for me). thus maybe making it regular could be helpful.

[phenom]

Just a quick idea.. not a biggie.. but the bold times-new roman text is a little eye straining(for me).  thus maybe making it regular could be helpful.

BJ and the rest of you folks, I've made some changes to the survey. Changes include:

* Two more statements per section - The final number of items/section will probably be reduced after the testing phase

* Clearer directions

* Less bold type

* Changed "Meaningfulness Issues" to "Meaning and Wisdom Issues"

* New Demographic variables - General Health Status, Medical Conditions, and Personality Type

* Change in appearance of the selection bars.

More suggestions are welcome, but I think we're making good progress and there's not much more needed for a test run.

Phenom

[Bruce Klein]

Nice.. looks good.

[Jace Tropic]

Excellent, Phenom. I too want to say I look forward to the results.

[phenom]

Excellent, Phenom. I too want to say I look forward to the results.

Thanks Jace.

Quick update.

The survey should now be funtional.

In addition, I've added another feature for those who are interested. Once an individual clicks on the SUBMIT button s/he is taken to a page that displays all their responses for each item. At the top and at the bottom of the results page is a link that will take the participant to a page that has the scoring protocols so that they can self-score their own survey and get some immediate interpretive value out of the exercise.

They can then bookmark that page and, as time goes by and data comes in, I will provide updates on descriptive statistics so people can compare their scores to others that take the survey.

Whew. I'm taking a little break now to work on something else.

Thanks for all the help people. [thumb]

[Lazarus Long]

Should you tag "computer users" with a cookie so that they can only answer one time per "user account"?

This might prevent people who want to answer multiple times from skewing your results.

[Bruce Klein]

Phenom,

Would you like ImmInst to publish this poll to the homepage?

[phenom]

Should you tag "computer users" with a cookie so that they can only answer one time per "user account"? 

This might prevent people who want to answer multiple times from skewing your results.

Good idea, but I don't know how to do that. Is it complicated?

[phenom]

Phenom,

Would you like ImmInst to publish this poll to the homepage?

Thanks so much for the offer, BJ. It is my hope that I can find a refereed journal in which to publish the paper I hope to write on this. I would like to see the broadest possible dissemination, of course. Actually, depending on the results, I suspect that 2-3 interesting papers could be written. In exchange for the gracious assistance offered here at your forum, however, I would be pleased to prepare a summary report for publication here at the ImmInst.

Update: (thinking out loud here) I changed the wording and phrasing in the (mainly) "Religious Issues" section to remove gender and religious biases. I intend on adding an "Occupation" question in the Demographics section. I moved the Demographics section to the bottom of the survey. I think people are more lilely to complete the full survey if they answer Sections 1 and 2 before being asked to answer the demographic section. I know I'm asking for a lot in the Demo section, but it can't be helped. I want complete profiles. The initial test run may well result in the elimination of some of the demo items as well as items in the other sections.

By the way, Merry Newtonmas to all.

Phenom

[Bruce Klein]

Thanks so much for the offer, BJ.

No problem, just let me know, as the offer stands.

[Lazarus Long]

Good idea, but I don't know how to do that. Is it complicated?

Having a cookie inserted may require a warning/agreement page be inserted to access the actual survey. I contribute to Harris, Nielson, and a few other opinion groups and most have this mechanism because of the importance of accurate psychometrics.

The warning is that cookies must be allowed for the survey and the agreement is that the person answering lets you put one on their machine. At the end of the survey just as the submit button tallies the result I believe your program would insert a cookie that essentially says this computer user has completed this survey and the next time they try to access the first page the cookie instead defaults to a "Thank You very much but you have already answered this survey" page.

Some subtleties of this are that it can tag the computer ID or the User ID. I suggest user ID is more appropriate but less valid for gathering data because it can be more easily circumvented but the degree of likely error is still pretty small.

I am not personally familiar with the programming involved but I suspect it is similar to a sign on process. I am confident there are people in our group and around that can provide a better answer than I have for this specific aspect. Please look around on the web and BJ could you better outline what I am talking about for him perhaps?

[John Schloendorn]

Cool survey, I especially enjoyed the religious questions. I'd love to see your results.

One standard argument that is missing is the "Physical immortality would not neccessitate personal immortality" thing. I.e. over very long times, immortals would completely change their personal characteristics, and therefor personal identity would fail. We'd get a succession of distinct selves, rather than one continued self.
E.g. see Glannon W (2002) "Identity, Prudential Concern, and Extended Lives." Bioethics, 16(3): 266-284

Good Luck, John.

[Lazarus Long]

I commend the changes and the glitch I noted earlier appears to be repaired. I wonder if you could also include some more (obvious) aspects of Fukuyama's "End of (Human) Evolution" argument as a question(s) under social and ethical concerns?

[phenom]

One standard argument that is missing is the "Physical immortality would not neccessitate personal immortality" thing. I.e. over very long times, immortals would completely change their personal characteristics, and therefor personal identity would fail. We'd get a succession of distinct selves, rather than one continued self.
E.g. see Glannon W (2002) "Identity, Prudential Concern, and Extended Lives." Bioethics, 16(3): 266-284

Good Luck, John.

I understand Glannon's argument (and disagree, of course), but I'm not so sure I'd call it a "standard argument". I may be wrong, but I doubt the average person would come up with objections to longevity centered around ideas about personal identity and continuity. I just feel that this is a bit heady for the general population I'll be targeting. I certainly appreciate the suggestion though. Thanks, John.

I commend the changes and the glitch I noted earlier appears to be repaired. I wonder if you could also include some more (obvious) aspects of Fukuyama's "End of (Human) Evolution" argument as a question(s) under social and ethical concerns?

Item #21 strikes me as representative of one of Fukuyama's main arguments. It reads, "Part of what makes us human is our limited life spans. To radically change that is to radically change what it means to be human."

But I also edited Item #7 to reflect another Fukuyama argument. It now reads, "Longer lives would mean our society would be burdened with a huge cadre of elderly people unable to reproduce or work, retarding social change. Society would come to resemble a giant nursing home."

Thanks for the suggestion, Laz.

Someone else brought up a good point and that is, "What are the non-religious participants supposed to do with the Religious Issues section?". My thinking was that it doesn't really matter what they do. If they identify themselves as being non-religious in the demographic section, any responses they provide in the Religious Issues section will be ignored in the data analysis phase. But perhaps a note clarifying the issue would help.

I sure appreciate everyone's support. I expect to test the survey with a small sample in a week or two when everyone's had a chance to recover from the holidays.

Phenom

[Lothar]

Being a studied sociologist I just want to emphasize that the level of subjective opinions is always a very superficial one which is NOT dealing with the deeper relevant factors of social interaction. I am featuring myself constantly an area about demographic data, social statistics, opinion polls and so on in my online-magazine FOREVER (which is in german language) because it's of course 'interesting' to know how people think or how greater parts of society are dividing up etc., but doing this I know perfectly well the limits of such approaches. Far instance: if you would have made an opinion poll in 1959 about the question whether man should land on the moon the results would not have supported this aim. Shortly later J.F. Kennedy held his famous speech and only ten ears later Neil Armstrong put his foot on the surface of the moon.

So I'm not against such studies but I don't believe that you could really find out the REAL reasons why so much people are against physical immortality or longevity. In case of existential questions you must consider existential levels but pure opinions, rational reasons, are on a different layer. This is especially to be said because you have missed the whole psychological aspect but for what reasons whole branches like psychology or psychoanalysis (or philosophy, literature) are existing if you just could ASK people why they are doing this and not something else!? Motivation has always something to do with EMOTION and the fear of death is not just a theoretical or cognitive thing but deep and strong rooted in ones emotional experience. (That's also the reason why people can act totally different to their opinions if they are coming under special circumstances where the whole thing gets relevant etc.) People don't understand themselves on the one hand, on the other hand there are powerful forces and organisations of politicians, experts, priests, journalists, economic conditions, social structures etc. which are constantly influencing the public opinion and that's another reason why you should be careful when you will interpretate your results.

In my - of course only personal - view the main reason why people are not supporting the idea of physical immortality is because they are not really enjoying their life here and today. That is the DEEPER cause of what Marc Geddes has called 'fatalism', a term which is not wrong but a little suggestive because it suggests that you could just reach immortality by your simple free will. So, if people don't enjoy their life here and today or are even really suffering, why should they wish to prolong it!??? (And it is clear that you cannot put a question like 'Are you really enjoying your life?' because you just would measure things like conformism, self betrayal and so on.) And don't forget: all the religious traditions do not promise pure immortality - the promise of eternal life is always connected with the promise of paradiese or something like that., that means: eternal life and the highest quality of life are mixed together.

My central point is not very complicated or in fact even very simple and so I'm constantly wondering why there is so less attention on the aspect of the quality of life if I'm reading through all the different topics of this forum. Perhaps you are all - more or less - wealthy and highly educated middle class people which are just projecting their own life conditions to the 'rest' of the world what would be on the one hand totally normal, on the other hand a little bit dangerous because even in the most developed countries in the western world such conditions are NOT of the majority! Prolonging life needs a base of different kind of privileges otherwise the project of prolonging seems like a threat to average people and NOT because of the prolonging itself but because of the lack of privilege! So if we want to make the movement for physical immortality stronger we have to engage for better living conditions in a very common way, not only under the close aspect of longevity and anti-aging but in the wider perspective of a higher quality of life in general. The wish to prolong it comes from itself.

The last aspect: in the complex field of different powerful opponents the point from John about the personality-thing is one of the most important ones at all, because there are strong critics especially from the psychological area which regard the wish for physicall immortality as a typical kind of 'narcisstic mental disorder'. You are right that this might not very relevant for normal people, but such psychologists would argue that you are just measuring collective forms and divisions of these disorders (or the oppositions of it). Maybe that's more a point for the interpretation of the outcome of your survey.

Good luck from Berlin, Germany.
Lothar

PS: If you cannot answer question 6 by your own you should not start your work because the results would be worthless. I'm no expert in this field of empirical research but there are standard procedures for the aspect of 'representiveness' (if this is the right english term, because I don't find it in my dictionary. I think you know what I mean). If you are unsure with this central technical point please look for professional help.

[Lazarus Long]

While you are perhaps crafting your (anti)thesis to Lothar's treatise on social para-science of sociology & psychology, I would like to generate a side discussion on parametrics that a separate thread has prompted me to suggest. [lol]

Please everyone (Lothar especially) take peek over here at the discussion: Abuses of Skepticism (against life extension)

I have long lamented two dimensional thinking and one reason it is so difficult in the social sciences to produce a result is that most parametrics are reduced to absurdly minuscule limits so as to preserve any validity of conclusion at all. However we can model more than two dimensions mathematically and handle more than just two variables, what occurs however is a broader distribution of result that should better reflect reality but also doesn't give the kinds of "either/or" precision most people are seeking from demographic analysis.

In the case of the topic I suggest be reviewed I propose three axes of socio-psychological relationship and I would love to see the demographic that results from this approach. Perhaps even as a result of this survey?

You see three basic socio-psychological variables can be modeled as economic, cultural, psychological and most populations will distribute out in predominately one of eight possible regions that just might describe and provide a considerable amount of information about their 'character,' 'qualities,' and "robustness" from an analytical perspective of evolutionary biology and psychology.

This approach may provide a real handle on not simply evaluating a social characteristic like "cultural vitality" but provide an insight into the individual psyche through a clear mapping of personality in relation to the social predominance of where the individual resides. This last analysis would provide psychotherapist with a better tool for assessing the legitimacy of feeling of dislocation and disaffectedness that impact on "depression" from non biological causality.

What I am suggest is to load questions for analysis of the three variables that assess economic preference with respect to capitalist/socialist, secular/theist, and objective/subjective psychological preference. The last being related to the aforementioned thread as it reflects the idea of skepticism as the demand for objectivity versus reward, as the idea of seeing all questions as "fun challenges" or obstacles to a preordained path for example.

The third analytical axis relates to the inertia of self motivation, definition of the "self" through extensions to socio-economic criteria and parochialism. If questions relating to these three variable parameters can be accurately presented then I suspect the results will weigh out with a significantly improved description of what is going on in a given group, individual and where the most likely associations of groups will be found (the measure of like mindedness).

Since you are making a survey Phenom and the subject as well as results interest us greatly here I thought to share this idea and put it out for better open discussion.

[phenom]

While you are perhaps crafting your (anti)thesis to Lothar's treatise on social para-science of sociology & psychology]

I think I could use some help understanding Lothar's main points. Perhaps others could paraphrase his argument? As a Psychologist, I did, however, get a kick out of him suggesting at the end that I get professional help. [lol] I will say that I don't think this survey is going to uncover deep truths about society or individual psyches. I'm at least aware of that limitation. But then, that wasn't my goal. I'm not that interested in highly abstract sociological  or psychological theories. I'm more interested in the practical use of the survey results.

I have long lamented two dimensional thinking and one reason it is so difficult in the social sciences to produce a result is that most parametrics are reduced to absurdly minuscule limits so as to preserve any validity of conclusion at all.  However we can model more than two dimensions mathematically and handle more than just two variables,..

Well, I've postulated five attitudal variables/dimensions. It may well be the case that there is some overlap and factor analysis may establish a different number of variables entirely; maybe 2, maybe 7. So is your suggestion (and I'm still a bit fuzzy on exactly what that is) based on an established model or is this a model that you have recently developed on your own. If the former, I could use a reference. If the latter, then perhaps you could draw it out and present it here or mail me privately with some further explanation. Or a phone call would be good too.

You see three basic socio-psychological variables can be modeled as economic, cultural, psychological and most populations will distribute out in predominately one of eight possible regions that just might describe and provide a considerable amount of information about their 'character,' 'qualities,' and "robustness" from an analytical perspective of evolutionary biology and psychology.

Yea, see. You're losing me here. I'm not one that's ashamed of admitting when I don't get it. I always sat at the front of the class and asked the dumb questions so others wouldn't have to. But it seems to me that I already have questions relating to economic, cultural, and psychological variables. How would I restructure that?

This approach may provide a real handle on not simply evaluating a social characteristic like "cultural vitality" but provide an insight into the individual psyche through a clear mapping of personality in relation to the social predominance of where the individual resides.  This last analysis would provide psychotherapist with a better tool for assessing the legitimacy of feeling of dislocation and disaffectedness that impact on "depression" from non biological causality.

I don't know. This sounds a bit beyond the scope, even tangential to the purpose of the survey. Again, this research is exploratory and was originally meant to gather information that would guide further inquiries marked by more specificity. I'm not convinced we can justify such specificity in research questions at this early juncture, but I'm certainly open to hearing opposing views.

What I am suggesting is to load questions for analysis of the three variables that assess economic preference with respect to capitalist/socialist, secular/theist, and objective/subjective psychological preference.  The last being related to the aforementioned thread as it reflects the idea of skepticism as the demand for objectivity versus reward, as the idea of seeing all questions as "fun challenges" or obstacles to a preordained path for example.

What does "an economic preference with respect to" secular/theist or objective/subjective mean? Maybe a visual representation of the model your describing would help me out. Again, could you graphically represent it. and perhaps provide some examples of questions that reflect your model?

Thanks for a very thoughtful post.

BTW, I've been busy writing an article on cognitive therapy that attempts to throw out a cherished consensual notion so I enjoyed the whole consensus vs objective science discussion. It's heretical tone will probably prevent it from being published. I can also relate to the ridiculously political biases associated with the flow of federal funds since they're flowing away from our group.

Thanks again Lazarus,

Phenom

[phenom]

Being a studied sociologist I just want to emphasize that the level of subjective opinions is always a very superficial one which is NOT dealing with the deeper relevant factors of social interaction....So I'm not against such studies but I don't believe that you could really find out the REAL reasons why so much people are against physical immortality or longevity.

I guess I agree for the most part, though I would suggest that as surveys go, the questions in this one are more thoughtful and thought provoking than most. And just how does one go about discovering the REAL reasons that people are for or against something like longevity. I don't think it's feasible. We can only theorize.

In case of existential questions you must consider existential levels but pure opinions, rational reasons, are on a different layer. This is especially to be said because you have missed the whole psychological aspect but for what reasons whole branches like psychology or psychoanalysis (or philosophy, literature) are existing if you just could ASK people why they are doing this and not something else!? Motivation has always something to do with EMOTION and the fear of death is not just a theoretical or cognitive thing but deep and strong rooted in ones emotional experience. (That's also the reason why people can act totally different to their opinions if they are coming under special circumstances where the whole thing gets relevant etc.) People don't understand themselves on the one hand, on the other hand there are powerful forces and organisations of politicians, experts, priests, journalists, economic conditions, social structures etc. which are constantly influencing the public opinion and that's another reason why you should be careful when you will interpretate your results.

Are you critcizing the survey for not getting at the unconcious dynamics associated with beliefs and attitudes toward death? Again, that's a pretty tall order. Please direct me to an instrument that has achieved this feat.

In my - of course only personal - view the main reason why people are not supporting the idea of physical immortality is because they are not really enjoying their life here and today. That is the DEEPER cause of what Marc Geddes has called 'fatalism'...

First of all, I think it's important to note that I only mention "immortal" once in the survey (religious section). I instead use terms like "life extension", "longer life span" or "extended lives". Secondly, what support do you have for your claim that people are not supporting the idea of longevity? I predict that people's attitudes 'will' be generally supportive as long as the quality of life is maintained (last option in question #1). Though I'm more interested in the correlates of attitudinal preferences. And yes, people's behaviors can certainly vary under special circumstances from their expressed beliefs, but I'm more interested in normal circumstances.

PS: If you cannot answer question 6 by your own you should not start your work because the results would be worthless. I'm no expert in this field of empirical research but there are standard procedures for the aspect of 'representiveness' (if this is the right english term, because I don't find it in my dictionary. I think you know what I mean). If you are unsure with this central technical point please look for professional help.

Question 6? Are you referring to Question 6 in the survey? "The more people there are, the more minds there’ll be working to solve any social or economic problems associated with longevity. Necessity is the mother of invention."

You are incorrect in thinking that I know what you mean here. I'm sorry, but I don't get it. Someone want to help me out here?

Thanks Lothar. I wish I could read German. I'd like to see your online magazine. What's the link? Maybe I can use babelfish to translate.

Phenom

[Lazarus Long]

I'm not that interested in highly abstract sociological  or psychological theories. I'm more interested in the practical use of the survey results.

I didn't think you were but I have learned that often the results of such studies have meaning well beyond the scope of those that design the surveys. Sharing results is one way to obtain varied perspective on how to develop alternative theoretical models for treatment of the same survey results. I was alluding to an alternative method of graphing and analyzing the data by my post.

But it seems to me that I already have questions relating to economic, cultural, and psychological variables. How would I restructure that?

I wasn't suggesting you hadn't included these characteristics I was suggesting that you load some personal questions to get a clearer idea about the level of psychological weight the subject has with relation to "faith" versus "skepticism". In the Harris Poll I sometimes participate in they have a question about do I always accept authority or do I always question authority (badly paraphrased not quoted) I am suggesting some additions like this and also some specific about religious versus secular decision making i.e. examples of choices based on "faith based reasoning" versus choices requiring objective decision.

I am too much in a hurry right now and I will try and get back to you later but I hope that helps deal with my suggestions. You see in the secular/theist determinant the variable is not just political and cultural it is psychological.

What I am saying is that from even a simple survey like yours if some parameters are structured to induce results in a full three axis model then some interest social demographics might result that could be illuminating.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 08 January 2004 - 02:33 PM.