73 replies to this topic

[Lothar]

Hello Phenom,

first of all the last point of my last post, the 'PS'-thing: May be I was not precice, because I meant NOT point 6 of your survey but point 6 on your list of questions to the readers at the end of your very first post, which has started this whole thread! See above, if you do not remember.

Of course I cannot deliver you 'instruments' for the unconcious dynamics of the soul, 'instruments' in a psychometric sense, but my argument went not SO far, because I do not think that we two could solve conflicts between the different paradigms in the social sciences thousands of experts have discussed since decades. (I would even have problems to discuss such meta-theoretical positions in german.) I just noticed that the psychological/emotional dimension seems to be underrepresented in your survey what is - in my very subjective opinion - just the central point of the whole problem.

Don't become 'rhetoric': you started this thread with 'Greetings fellow IMMORTALISTS', this is the homepage of the 'IMMORTALITY institute' and longevity OUTSIDE such a context means something VERY different as inside such a frame. It is just the deeper sense of surveys like yours to get more precise and differentiated data about such orientations, and that's perfectly o.k. My 'skepticism' was on a different scale about the limits of empirical studies in general what may be more relevant for the interpretation of the results, not for the way of producing them (like the thing above about the 'representiveness'). But as you are still in the evaluation phase I thought some general reflections about the general approach would be usefull. I beg you for pardon if I have confused you because no one who wants to go for a ship ride wants to hear how beautiful the mountains are (or how dangerous some sharks).

Your hypothesis/prediction is interesting and we will see whether you can confirm it but how I have indicated in my first post: the precise operationalizing of the quality of life is very difficult. This is not an argument against it but I'm especially not sure whether this sentence about your definition of life extension which comes before all the questions in the survey isn't circular and suggestive: 'Please note: For this survey we assume...' May be you try two variants and compare the results: one group with this sentence and one without, at least in a pre-test with some interviews about it afterwards!?? This danger of circularity I see generally because if you want to measure the attitudes of the people it is very different whether you just ask for their opinions or give them alternatives they normally are not aware of or have never thought about. I think this is not a question of true and false but of measuring different things.

I don't think that we must really discuss that there is not much active support for the aim of physical immortality, the whole founding of this institute and a lot of its work is derived from this premise. And I too know from older (german) opinion polls which have examined your topic although not in your complex approach: If I remind the results right there were less than ten percent of the (german) population that want to become hundred and less than five percent that want to live forever. May be there are significant changes since then or significant differences between different countries or cultures, that would be another study, but if you have such a strong statistical assymmetrie in a special question you need no exact data to come to the same conclusion just by your normal experience, at least if you have studied sociology. If I'm generalizing in this point, it's from such backgrounds.

'Normal' circumstances??? I'm sorry, but it took me a lot of years to understand that all these topics of religious beliefs, spiritual concepts, immortality and so on are not deriving from normal circumstances, every day life, peaceful living conditions etc. but from how I have called it 'existential confrontation', that means real confrontation with the fear of death. I myself come from other theoretical sources but in experimental psychology there are newer approaches under the title 'terror management' which are exactly dealing with this point. John Schloendorn knows much more about it than me in detail because he has already published a paper here on imminst where he has mentioned it in a chapter. (Sorry, John, I don't find the link!?)

The links for my magazine you can find in the german sector of the regional area. In the latest number 3 far instance I had just written about the demographic division of christian religiousness in my hometown Berlin in comparison to non-believers, atheists and so on. In short: there are only about 1,5 Million organized Christians and Muslims from a population of nearly 3,5 Million people. So about 2 Million people in my direct neighbourhood do not belong any longer to an official religious tradition, but where are all the institutions, organisations, groups and so on which are engaging for physical immortality or longevity? Where?? I cannot perceive them and this is not just another base for my generalisations about the lack of support above but a real question for me. You see I'm really interested in results of surveys like yours but I just don't believe that empirical research is the onliest way of getting deeper information about the society you live in.

Greetings
Lothar


@Lazarus Long:

I'm not sure, whether this term of 'skepticism' in English means exactly the same as in german - 'Skeptizismus' - because in german it means a general attitude of criticism beyond the subject or without examining the arguments. In this meaning 'skepticism' cannot be 'abused' - it IS the abuse! I had read your recommended topic already yesterday before your answer and I thought for myself three things: 1. I'm always wondering how much time people have for polemic debates. I have not. 2. It reminded me of an old argument from Thomas Kuhns 'The structure of scientific revolutions', that conventional science MUST be always a little bit conservative because the new paradigm cannot be derived from the old one in a simple and logical way and so has to undertake a special effort, especially in criticism. Otherwise everyone could claim everything. 3. Criticism is the motor of science itself, because you cannot find new things if you are not denying the existing ones etc. People who are born skeptics like - may be Casanova - do not practice too much criticism but too LESS. The ultimate increase of criticism leads to a point where you even will criticize criticism ITSELF what is a dialectic figure (not from me but from an indian mystic). The inner result of such an attitude is something like peace, faith or silence but not this constant form of aggressiveness 'professional skeptics' show. 'Gleichmut', we say in german and my dictionary offers me 'equanimity' for this term, which shall express a higher form of wisdom.

[Lazarus Long]

Lothar
The comparison to Kuhn is very appropriate and in English I am using the word skeptic in the more "objective" (critically analytical) manner, not the subjective form most associate with criticism.

The subjective form in English is assumed to be negative also, but the pandering to this has lead to the "I'm OK your OK" level of ethical relativism that is insipid at best, though it was meant to be a form of tolerance. How it is practiced is as apathy and indifference. I prefer acumen and "close tolerances" as in engineering.

Given the stereotypes about German culture and its history of authoritarianism I could see how an idea that contained at its core that all authority is questionable might be considered abusive. To me the idea of the skeptic is embodied in popular phrase, "Question Authority". If it pleases you to turn that around to the Authority of Question that may still function. Though this should not be confused with the "Authority to Question".

I think your German use of the word 'Skeptizismus' is more like we describe the cynic. Socrates is my personal paradigm of a skeptic and his famous affirmation for the denial of knowledge is reminiscent of the kind of questioning the question (not merely the authority) or as you put it "criticizing the criticism", you suggest. To paraphrase: "the only thing I know for certain is that which I do not know".

(Please forgive me if I have crossed an imaginary cultural divide inarticulately and I hope my attempts at cross cultural humor are not offensive)

Phenom

You are developing questions that are scaler with respect to the established polarity of each given pair. Theist is scalar but so is secular, an atheist is one extreme but an agnostic is not theist but is secular, that is why I contrast theism with secularism. I am suggesting that the idea of the skeptic is based on two different principle psychological states, one is active (both subjective and objective) the other is passive and relates more to issues of psychological complacency, mental lethargy, and stubbornness (unwillingness or inertia).

The point is the latter are almost entirely subjective attitudes that are derived from "personalized" motivations and the other is an objective attitude derived from "depersonalized" motivation.

Fear for example can be an impetus to resist, to question, or to affirm an unforeseen alternative idea. As a subjective psychological state they can produce attitudes ranging from denial to hysteria (strenuous behavioral acting out of a passive psychological state). A while ago when I was studying cognitive psych for teaching I became interested in modeling the characteristic relationship of attitude and motivation differently than had previously been done because I found the textbook had not taken into the account the circuitous manner that the two continuously feedback back upon one another in both affirmative and inhibitory manners while simultaneously influenced by internalized and externalized factors.

This paper was specifically about the classroom environment but we were applying psychometric analysis to how aspects of culture influence not only participation within the classroom but how it altered student perception of the materials being introduced.

I was thinking about this when I read your poll and then again while I was writing about skepticism in a different thread. The value of information which your poll could generate for example is to identify those groups we should target as "inherently" sympathetic and recognizing those groups we might expect to find the most resistance from. While on the surface some of these may appear obvious the ones that are not obvious but closely aligned might become readily apparent through an analysis of the results.

As an aside I see the polarity of 3 axes consisting of what could be seen as 6 variables or three depending on the bias you take to the structure.

For example I was describing the contrast of secular/theist as one variable on a positive/negative continuum but in fact it should probably be considered two separate variables each with its own sort of 'parallel' continuum. I was demonstrating my own bias by my assumption. The principle point however to be specific is to model beyond bell curves and use three dimensional graphic depiction, that was the reference to the 'Z' axis was all about.

If secular/theist is one axis, and on another axis then you create a contrast of socio-economic metrics using the aspects of left/right politics as the scalar contrast then how much government versus private enterprise should dominate research is a classic question but so is "who should pay for health care;" and issues of pensions and numerous other values that can influence how people will develop an interest or fear of longevity tech.

As I began to see a splatter graph form along a four quadrant XY axis in both positive and negative terms I began wondering if another variable resolving the "psychological state" of the subject could be included and here is where I made the cross over to the issue of subjective/objective skepticism.

I was showing my bias because I suspect faith to be driving subjective forms of skepticism and science to be driving objective ones. But unlike many of my contemporaries I do not see religion and science as true opposites but more in the dilemma posed by Hegel with respect to the distinction of "belief and knowledge." The metaphor would be they are the different faces (metrics) on opposite sides of the same coin. The coin being our psychological attitudes which you are measuring.

Some people will readily tell you they believe ABC to be true and when you ask why they smile and say: "so an so says so," or "its in the book," or "its common sense." In each case they are qualifying their belief with a reference not explaining (demonstrating a valid understanding). BTW, what I have just described is valid for both scientific and theist practitioners.

In the last case they are saying they witnessed an event they are not explaining it. Here they are being quite honest because they are telling you they believe and do not know something to be true, however the parochial mindset will make this further claim and recite passage and verse to make sure you see the citation. They may have no better understanding than the person that only claims to "believe" ABC" to be true but their zealotry in the matter makes them much more obstinate a foe, or ardent a supporter.

However an objective skeptic might say I do not believe or disbelieve ABC to be true because I do not know enough about it so I will learn. As they are learning about ABC it will appeal or repulse them based on many personal criteria but their understanding will be based not on citation of external authority, or emotion but in an ability to comprehend and assimilate the relevant information then explain the characteristics and relationship of principles (nuance) that make ABC valid. Most people do not do this they take someone's word instead. I have often heard it described as these four principles or characteristics of real science: observation, testability, predictability, and reliability.

Observation to cross back to the other thread does not require an overt (active) skeptical perspective but subsumes a remarkably powerful passive childlike WHY? associated with all sensory input.

It is the artistic soul with the child's innocent inquisitiveness. The sky is blue. Why? The ants walk in rows. Why? A butterfly floats. Why? Bees hum. Why? Some things taste different than others. Why? Things only fall one direction. Why? Everything I touch is either wet, hard, or vapor. Why? Somethings are hot others cold to touch. Why? Somethings are smaller than I normally perceive. Why? Light fills the sky. Why?

To make the next three steps work well an actively skeptical mind is better (more practical) than an 'accepting' one. Testability is predicated on relevant question, predictability needs to anticipate as many contrary reasons as possible for failure, and reliability must be repeatedly validated in order to demonstrate it.

Organized Institutional Religion tends to appreciate the artistic soul and then provide a generic answer to why. God. That's it, that's all, and accept it, so let us do your thinking for you. They actively deny and resist the general application of the three remaining steps of scientific investigation and philosophy because it promotes dangerous heretical behavior with respect to theocratic organization. As secular politics mimics this repressive tendency they are not too tolerant of true scientific teaching either.

Also scientific inquiry is not the average persons approach to life. What happens pragmatically in their experience is that they are being asked to choose who to have faith in, science, religion, or frankly politics. All three being more business than social club but all three are a little of both plus vying with one another for power over general society.

BTW, Industry should be introduced as a separate fourth contender here. It should not be confused with science though it is a little confusing to most people because technology is the child of science but is not dominated by it. Industry, Science, Religion and Politics all compete to dominate technology with science and religion providing fundamental principles for the means, ends, and ethics of use and Industry and politics reflecting market demand, incentive, and investment.

Your survey is for analyzing how the trends will play out with various groups and I wasn't disagreeing with any of your questions I was wondering if the inclusion of some specific demographic criteria would allow a more precise grouping. For example I suspect that you will get a very different reaction from a Vermont Anglican than a Southern Baptist when it comes to issues of longevity, and more generally Transhumanism. So I was suggesting you ask: "If you are a member of any church what is it? and then on the scalar questions do you attend weekly, monthly, seasonally, annually, or only for weddings and funerals {joke} ('Not at all' is the example).

I have been musing out loud on this but perhaps the skeptic idea is better contrasted with trust for a continuum or as I suggest above are you skeptical/trusting. Like; "I trust my doctor" scale of 1 through 5, and a series of questions like that for "I trust my political representatives", "my banker," broker, priest, etc. Versus a contrast of questions like When my doctor gives me a diagnosis I get a second opinion 1 (never) through 5 (always). As well as a question like: Is Creationism a scientific theory? 1 (not at all) through 5 (proven beyond a doubt). Or "I trust technology" 1-5, etc.

I have participated in many studies and one aspect I remember is that many surveys ask what for scientific reasons look like "control questions" and also a set of "demographic question" that give them a more precise idea of who is answering the question while maintaining anonymity. I may not have succeeded but I was trying to get at the type and purpose of such questions.

At the end of the Harris poll for example there is always an 'either or question' that acts as a determinant of trust. Trust or faith contrasted with skeptical objectivity with respect to "authority" is a parameter they consistently measure.

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?

OK issues like state funding of church medical programs and schools are one area of overlap and NASA or the war on Cancer are others. The very concept of a Socialized Medical agenda is a subject that has profound implications to our goals and whose pros and cons are measured by generally highly subjective criteria in most peoples minds but is essentially an economic preference that overlaps secular/theist and objective/subjective reasoning.

I am trying to suggest questions that allow a better graphic comparison of associated beliefs, attitudes, and indications of deeper motivations. Did this help explain my rapid ramblings from yesterday?

[Lothar]

@ Lazarus Long: I thought about this sentence of Socrates all by myself already yesterday and I would say the 'born skeptic' or cynic is never able to such an insight (which needs the ability of self criticism or self irony) This is a way to identify him very quickly.

Your 'attempts at cross cultural humor' are o.k. but sometimes I'm a little bit slow in understanding. Normally - in german - I read a lot between the lines but in english I have much to do WITH the lines...

[phenom]

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."

Sorry for the delayed response. Beginning of the semester and quite busy, but I think I sort of see what you're after here. I think that the MBTI personality test will provide much of what your asking about. I'm breaking personalities into 16 different types that reflect dispositions associated with decision making styles, coping styles, learning styles, etc. The faith vs. skepticism thing should also be at least partly reflected in personality dimensions. But check out the following changes.

*Edited: The introduction is now an Informed Consent section

*Edited: Removal of the beginning sentence that defines longevity for the purposes of the survey. The definition is inherent expressed in Item 1.

*Removed: Demographic variable "IQ". Years of Education should suffice and be less intrusive.

*Added: Demographic variable "Political Persuasion"

*Added: Item 3: If you are a member of a church, which denomination or sect is it (e.g. Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic, Methodist, etc)?

*Added: Item 4:

What kind of decision maker are you?
a. Very intuitive. I trust my feelings implicitly. They're almost always right.
b. Somewhat intuitive. I tend to trust my feelings over my thoughts much of the time
c. I try to maintain a good balance. Both reason and intuition are equally important to me
d. I give more weight to my ability to reason things through, but I don't ignore my feelings on the matter.
e. Very rational. I make decisions based on skeptical and critical evaluation. One's intuition can't be trusted.

Do these changes help?

New version located at Longevity Attitude Survey

Thanks also to Lothar for his? comments. I'll try to keep them in mind when interpreting the results.

Phenom

[Lothar]

@ Phenom: Yes, you are right. 'Lothar' is a male name.

[Lazarus Long]

I really have to make reference to this site and poll which I found in recent discussion. I would suggest to everyone they take the test and that we attempt to begin an analysis of ourselves here to better understand how to maximize our cooperative potential and minimize the aspects that will inherently cause conflict.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I also would recommend to you Phenom that you examine the poll at this site and the analysis it offers to better understand many of the recommendations I have been making.

I will however refrain from telling my personal results until many of you weigh in with your own. )

[phenom]

I took the survey and fell into company with the Dalai Lama and Ghandi.

I at least partly understand what you're talking about Lazarus in terms of interpreting the data using multidimensional perspectives. That's why I created 5 dimensions of attitudinal perspectives. Whether these dimensions have any validity to them or not has yet to be demonstrated however. Factor analysis may reveal all five dimensions are viable or that there are only two significant factors (e.g. a dimension of morally right vs. morally wrong and a dimension of socially desirable vs. socially undesirable). Once we know the cognitive dimensions making up the public mind set we can focus on how to represent it. If you like I can provide you with a copy of the database for your own analysis.

I will turn in the application to the human subjects review board tomorrow. That's a three week process, so there's still time for discussion.

Phenom

[phenom]

Recent changes:

Note new location: Longevity Attitudes Survey

Deleted MBTI personality test - don't like the idea of participants leaving the site and it adds a lot to the length of the survey.

Replaced with Brief Big Five Personality Inventory - only 14 items correlate strongly to longer version.

Added background graphic.

Will initiate Human Subjects Board Review tomorrow. Takes a few weeks.

[David]

Having just done a course in Psychometrics for my Psych degree, I thought I would take a look. Here are some thoughts.

Social issues

Q1 in social issues is double barrelled. It asks two separate questions. Perhaps separate the two questions.

Same for Q2.

Q3: Almost double barrelled, but I think you could get away with it…

Q4 assumes your subjects agree that a larger population means more consumers and more workers. They may not agree.

Q5: OK

Q6 once again asks two related but similar questions. Perhaps consider asking two separate questions.

Q7 assumes your subject agrees with your first statement and then asks a question on this assumption. They may not agree with the first statement. Perhaps you could separate the statement and the question and ask them both as separate questions.

Q8 could be reworded, it assumes agreement on one thing to ask a question about another.

Feasibility issues

Q9: Eeeek! I hope nobody strongly agrees with this! Good question, though rather emotional.

Q10 could be two separate questions. You could then see if there is a correlation between the two issues. Go data hunting! It’s fun!

Q11: Good.

Q12 Ask both questions to be on the safe side. IE: QA) pertaining to being eliminated. QB) pertaining to what needs to be done to eliminate it.

Q13 could be the same.

Q15: Good

Q15 is double barrelled. The second barrel you have already asked.

Q16 is double barrelled. One is a question about markets, and one is a question about the availability of funding. No harm done asking the 2 questions!

Ethical issues

Q17: keep it simple! Try just asking the question as: Death is part of the cycle of life, part of the natural order of things. OR just: Seeking an end to death isn’t natural. Remember, 50% of the population has an IQ lower than 100, you don’t want to confuse a large portion of them with too many words.

Q18 is actually triple barrelled! Barrel 1: It assumes that your subject agrees that a longer life span is unnatural. Barrel 2: Asks if that unnaturalness makes it wrong. Barrel 3: Asks to what degrees are the unnatural things you list good for us. In addition, Barrel 3 has a selection of things that they may have lots of different views on.

Q19 is once again double barrelled.

Q20 is too. Both questions are too important to ask as one question. Try asking: 1) Life is to waste? And: 2) There is nothing selfish about simply desiring to live.

Q21 asks 2 questions.

Q22 makes a statement that should really be a question, and then asks a question depending on their agreement on that question. Once again you need to be careful not to ask too many questions inside your question. One question per question!

Q23: Good question, but check your grammar.

Q24: Good question.

Religious issues

Q25 is once again double barrelled.

Q 26 is too.

Q27 is too.

Q28 is too.

Q29 to 31 are all good questions. They all involve one question per question. Do you see what I mean?

Q32 is double barrelled.

Meaning – wisdom issues

Q33 is too.

Q34 is too.

Q 35 asks no less than 4 questions.

Q 36 is double barrelled.

Q37 is too.

Q38 could be reworded. Try: Given longer life spans, we could all contribute so much more. Or is there another agenda to this question?


I would suggest you take a 3rd year university course in psychometrics. It’s informative, and a good way to expand the mind. A couple of quick hints though:

You need to not assume anything in the beliefs of your subjects. It often shocks us when we find that others don’t believe the same things we do. For example, I am surprised and shocked when I find others don’t have the same love of dark chocolate that I do. If I was to formulate a question that went:

Q1) Dark chocolate is the best chocolate. When I eat it I feel good.
1) Disagree 2) Neutral 3) Strongly agree

The question would be (is) flawed, as it assumes everybody loves dark chocolate as much as I do. It also asks 2 questions, making it double barrelled. The question asks how much I agree with the statement that dark chocolate is the best chocolate, as well as asking how much I agree with the statement that it makes me feel good when I eat it.

A good rule of thumb is to realize that if you have more than one sentence in your question, you may be asking more than one question. Too many commas are a good indicator also of double or triple barrelled questions.

Please don’t take any of my comments the wrong way. You have taken the initiative to formulate a questionnaire of this kind, and that on its own is worthy of praise. With a little more work, and some input from someone at a University near you, perhaps a psychometrics lecturer, you could be on to something!

Dave

[Lazarus Long]

This is wonderful phenom, the changes are great. i also agree on taking out the MBTI test as the questions are now built in.

Excellent product good luck I am looking forward to seeing the results. How and where will you be posting it?

Will you designate sample populations to test?

Great Job!

[Lazarus Long]

Small point, could you get the question text to wrap better so you don't have to scroll to answer and a trick I have seen that is nice is color block the questions. The font might be more readable that way. I would us a slightly heavier text though not necessarily a bold.

You could keep the straw paper background but darken and lighten question blocks. It is minor point but as a survey taker sometimes I object to long surveys that are not easily readable and when I have to work too hard (scrolling left/right) to physically answer them. That is why easy reading fonts for long surveys are important, as well as color.

The language of the questions are nice however and in that respect this one excels IMO. I expect some interesting data.

[phenom]

Having just done a course in Psychometrics for my Psych degree, I thought I would take a look. Here are some thoughts.

Thanks so much for you analysis, Dave. I've got some time to consider your input before the human subjects review board gives me their stamp of approval. I hope it's allright if I send you a private message if I have certain detailed questions.

Please don’t take any of my comments the wrong way. You have taken the initiative to formulate a questionnaire of this kind, and that on its own is worthy of praise. With a little more work, and some input from someone at a University near you, perhaps a psychometrics lecturer, you could be on to something!
Dave

And everybody please note how Dave's psychology training has taught him to be sensitive to the fact that I might react defensively to his criticisms. [sfty]

Naw, I always welcome 'constructive' criticism. After I integrate whatever suggestions of yours I concur with, I'll approach a psychometrician, but frankly it's hard for us professors to find extra time to do stuff like this.

Thanks again, Dave.

[phenom]

Small point, could you get the question text to wrap better so you don't have to scroll to answer and a trick I have seen that is nice is color block the questions.  The font might be more readable that way.  I would us a slightly heavier text though not necessarily a bold.

You could keep the straw paper background but darken and lighten question blocks.  It is minor point  but as a survey taker sometimes I object to long surveys that are not easily readable and when I have to work too hard (scrolling left/right) to physically answer them.  That is why easy reading fonts for long surveys are important, as well as color.

The language of the questions are nice however and in that respect this one excels IMO.  I expect some interesting data.

Where is it that you have to scroll sideways to read text? Everywhere? What size monitor do you have, because I'm not getting that problem.

I do like the idea of blocking the survey in some manner. Let me cogitate on that.

I think Dave might disagree with your point on the language excelling.

Thanks L,

Phenom

[phenom]

I see that someone else just took the survey from this forum but left no comments.

Please be aware that I cannot use any of the data gathered during this developmental phase, so unless you're taking the survey to offer feedback on some aspect of it, I would prefer that you delay taking the survey until we can use the data and get a larger sample of Imminst members.

So whoever just completed it, could you please tell me how long it took (assuming you took the one I provided a link for just a few messages ago)?

and what other comments do you have regarding the experience? Was it easy to read, clear instructions, etc.?

Thanks

[Lazarus Long]

I use a 19 inch, 800X600 maximized IE6 browser window. I even did the survey in the super max that XP lets me use. It still had to be scrolled.

His point is valid but I am reading attitides as well as opinion and you have given a lot of real stereotypes. The steroetpes don't have to provide exact values if they are accurately portrayed IMO. The values that you will get will still carry the weight of the general distribution and show associations. But I have heard the argument Dave makes and it has some merit.

For example:

1. Life extension treatments will be too expensive for the masses, so only those who can afford it will benefit. Wealth and resources would unjustly accumulate into the hands of a few.

Could break out as:

Life extension treatments will:

1: Be too expensive for the masses (scaler choice)

2: Be only for those who can afford them (scaler choice)

3: Mean wealth and resources would unjustly accumulate into the hands of a few. (scaler choice)

I have not just written any paper on psychometrics or just finished the course but his criticism of this aspect is one that I can see as valid by the example I show.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 22 January 2004 - 02:47 AM.

[phenom]

OK. Here's my comments on David's suggestions. There's a tradeoff to be had but I can't argue that more precise questions have a better chance of helping me identify the dimensions of the longevity question. So I did implement several of David's recommendations. He frequently argued that the statements contained a premise or assumption which the participant might not agree with. My response is, what's wrong with that? These statements are arguments either for or against life extension. Some have explicit premises, some have implicit premises. Either way, I'm not asssuming the participant agrees or disagrees. It is the job of the participants to tell me whether they agree or not. It's true that I can't know whether they agree/disagree with the premise or the conclusion or both, but I don't see a way around that nor do I think I necessarily need to.

The slimmed down version of the survey along with some changes to eliminate the need to scroll horizontally and make the sections more distinct can be seen at

Longevity Attitude Survey

Once again, thanks go out to David, Laz, and many more for helping me hone this instrument.

Phenom

[David]

"Naw, I always welcome 'constructive' criticism. After I integrate whatever suggestions of yours I concur with, I'll approach a psychometrician, but frankly it's hard for us professors to find extra time to do stuff like this."

Glad to be of assistance. Hope the response to your private message helped.

I had another look at the revised edition. I have picked out your first question to try to make my point a little clearer.

1. Life extension treatments will be too expensive for the masses, so only those who can afford it will benefit. Wealth and resources would unjustly accumulate into the hands of a few.

Here we have three closely related but separate statements. Don't be fooled by their similarities, there are subtle differences.

Statement 1) Life extension treatments will be too expensive for the masses.

Statement 2) Only those who can afford life extension treatment will benifit from it.

Statement 3) Wealth and resources would unjustly accumulate into the hands of a few.


Problems can arise if the person agrees with one or more of the statements whilst disagreeing with one or more of the others. For example:

They may believe that life extension treatments will be too expensive for the masses, but that the government may legislate to lower the price, allowing everybody to reap the benifit.

They may agree that life extension treatments will be too expensive for the masses, but feel that if the masses can afford it, they are just as liable to benifit from it as the rich.

They may believe that there will be no change to the way things are now, in that wealth and resources ARE ALREADY accumulated in the hands of the few, but they may believe that life extension treatments may become inexpensive through pirating, legislative changes, public outcry or revolution.

I could go on and on with scenarios, but what I am trying to suggest is that you refine your variables. The less room there is for misunderstanding, the less room there is for extraneous variables to corrupt your data.

Remember the KISS rule: Keep it simple, stoopid! Not implying that you are stoopid of course! You seem pretty motivated and bright to me!

Dave

[David]

Bugger! Laz beat me to it! You have to be quick!

Dave

[phenom]

I had another look at the revised edition. I have picked out your first question to try to make my point a little clearer.

David,

I don't think you looked over the most recent incarnation. Check again at Longevity Attitudes Survey

And thanks for the PM

Phenom

[David]

Theres a big improvement, still a ways to go though. Better to do it here than back and forth with an ethics commitee! They are such pains in the bum! See my latest private message.

Dave

[David]

Here are some suggestions for now, I have to get going but will be back tomorrow:

1) An expensive life extension treatment, unavailable to the masses, would see wealth and resources accumulate into the hands of the few.
2) A longer lived population would make better decisions aimed towards improving life for all.
3) Life extension would result in economic and environmental problems.
4) A larger population translates into economic growth.
5) Life extension robs future generations of employment prospects.
6) Economic and environmental problems will be solved through necessity.
7) Increasing the aged population will retard social change.
8) The bulk of health care services are needed in the last days or months of a person’s life.

Let me know what you think.

Dave

[phenom]

Here are some suggestions for now, I have to get going but will be back tomorrow:

1) An expensive life extension treatment, unavailable to the masses, would see wealth and resources accumulate into the hands of the few.
2) A longer lived population would make better decisions aimed towards improving life for all.
3) Life extension would result in economic and environmental problems.
4) A larger population translates into economic growth.
5) Life extension robs future generations of employment prospects.
6) Economic and environmental problems will be solved through necessity.
7) Increasing the aged population will retard social change.
8) The bulk of health care services are needed in the last days or months of a person’s life.

Let me know what you think.

Dave

Truthfully, I think the survey is getting about as slimmed down as I'm comfortable with. I don't want it getting anorexic. I really appreciate your help but fear we are getting over-zealous in our efforts to be psychometrically correct. I can appreciate keeping the items from being overtly double-barrelled, but I think I prefer to present the participants with more elaborated arguments than you suggest. Take item 4 for example, "A larger population translates into economic growth." Participants can't respond to this item without creating an argument in their mind. "Well, I suppose that a larger population could translate into economic growth if blah blah...". I don't really want to give them that much freedom. My survey presents more complete arguments and asks the participant to agree or disagree. Your version of the items removes my argument and allows the participant to project their own. I do think the instrument is much improved thanks to your involvement though, David, and I want to express my sincere gratitude.

As for the review board, they're more concerned with the ethical treatment of human subjects than with the psychometric qualities of the instrument. They've OK'd surveys of much lower quality than this one, IMO.

Hey Laz, can you read the survey without scrolling now?

Phenom

[bacopa]

Just from quickly looking it over it looks really good and I think it is eye catching as well. As long as we get people to start thinking about these issues than we really have something here.

People need to start seriously considering life extension issues as we've talked about before. Survey's like this will get people to question their steadfast beliefs and get angry at the lack of life extension attention in the media and the population in general. Great job!

[Bruce Klein]

i know i'm a freak about professionalism.. but the girl banging the keyboard is a bit distracting (to me) also, perhaps we could replace title with:

[Bruce Klein]

ahh.. sorry i was looking at the old (cashed) survey.. new one looks great. http://ivcusers.ed.u...y/longevity.htm

[Lazarus Long]

It looks good and doesn't require scrolling on the maximum setting anymore. I will try and get time later to review it. Great job IMO.

[David]

"David, and I want to express my sincere gratitude."

Any time!

What are you planning to do with the results?

David

[phenom]

Just from quickly looking it over it looks really good and I think it is eye catching as well.  As long as we get people to start thinking about these issues than we really have something here.

Thanks dfowler,

Actually in addition to several other things, I intend on trying to determine whether or not the survey alters the attitudes of those who take it by using two versions. One version will have the question, "...how many ageless years would you add to your lifespan if you could do so?" before the survey and a second version where the same question appears after they take the survey. By comparing those who take version 1 and those who take version 2, not only will I be able to see if attitudes change but I may also be able to identify certain groups that are more likely than others to change their attitudes toward longevity, be it in a positive or negative direction.

Phenom

[phenom]

"David, and I want to express my sincere gratitude."

Any time!

What are you planning to do with the results?

David

Honestly? Dr. Stephen Austad works in the building across from mine. I'm going to ask him to coauthor a paper on the findings and publish. He's awfuly busy though, so I won't be surprised if he can't do it.

Phenom

[David]

Cool!

Getting Dr Austad involved from the ground up could increase your chances of coauthoring that paper. Simple social psychology!

May I suggest an extra control group? for example:

Formulate a separate questionairre pertaining to another subject, say, football, but still ask the same primary questions before and after, eg, "...how many ageless years would you add to your lifespan if you could do so?". This way you could deflect any criticism that any change in attitude didn't just come from the opportunity to mull over the primary question whilst doing the questionairre.

You could then measure the change in attitude of both groups from before to after, experimental and control, then do a simple T test on the results. [glasses]

Wocha reckon?

Dave.

PS. Happy Australia day for tomorrow (26th Jan) everybody! I think I'll go swimming, eat lots of burnt meat and drink too much beer with friends and rellies! (we get a holiday) What about you? [tung]