Should we not be concerned with some measurement issues before we debate
the evidence? What were the items on the 10-item test? That is, everyone
seems to be jumping the gun... doesn't anyone care about validity anymore?
:(
WBW
__________________________________________________________________________
William B. Ware, Professor and Chair Educational Psychology,
CB# 3500 Measurement, and Evaluation
University of North Carolina PHONE (919)-962-7848
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3500 FAX: (919)-962-1533
http://www.unc.edu/~wbware/ EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________________________________
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Ronald Bloom wrote:
> In sci.stat.edu Neil W. Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Herman Rubin wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Those who voted for Bush are more likely to be literate,
> >>
> >
> > Rubin's is not a very controversial statement. I would think that most readers
> > of this newsgroup not only agree with it, but have access to documentation of it.
> > Here's a table from the 1996 General Social Survey of American adults that shows
> > that partisan Democrats score lower on a short (10 word) vocabulary test, on the
> > average, than partisan Republicans.
> >
> >
>
> It is certainly a controversial statement. It is logically equivalent to
> the statement that:
>
> "Non Bush-voters are more likely to be *illiterate* than Bush Voters"
>
> and I assume that the intended reading is that:
>
> "Gore voters are more likely to be *illiterate* than Bush Voters".
>
> You, on the other hand, have brought in evidence to defend the different
> (but still controversial) assertion that:
>
> "Bush voters are more likely to be *more* literate than Gore Voters"
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> do you see the difference? One fellow is throwing around implications
> of *illiteracy*. The other pretends to defuse the controversy by
> playing as if the first fellow was talking only about *relative* literacy.
>
> Moreover, is the base-rate for illiteracy among voters
> significant enough to even make the discussion anything
> more than an exorcism of a hypothetical bugbear:
> Such courage some have, blurting out the unspeakable! even if it
> scarcely has any measurable effect on the matter at all.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Lastly, I will repeat what I wrote previously: I fail to appreciate
> the alleged signficance of "literacy" or "relative literacy"
> in regard to someone's likelihood of committing one or another
> error of cognition or dexterity in manipulating either simple
> or complex machines. Does anyone contest the claim that
> there are illiterate mechanics as well as highly literate
> persons who cannot change a loose electric switchplate, or
> butter a piece of hot toast without burning themselves
> or dropping the bread or knife or jam-jar or all three?
>
>
> All these discussions in which the controlling preoccupation
> seems to be one of "fitness" all have the same colour:
> that the "fit" shall lead; and the "unfit" shall step
> aside. Now, sir, who shall guard us from the guards
> of "fitness" themselves?
>
>
>
> =================================================================
> Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
> the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
> http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
> =================================================================
>
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
