# The PIPA Report: Americans on Iraq on the Eve of the Presidential Election **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 11, 2004, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111 "2004-11-11T00:07:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/41 "2004-11-11T21:32:45Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Here is the report on the study. Here are the questions asked and the results obtained. Great! Thanks! -XT ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/42 "2004-11-11T21:54:37Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Yeah. A correlation between people who support candidates and their knowledge or ignorance on certain issues. It makes no claims about causation, no claims about the error structure, nothing. Therefore, there are very few conclusions that you actually _can_ draw from this correlation, other than to say, “some correlation exists”. You cannot conclude that “more ignorant people _vote_ for Bush,” since the survey reports no observed behavior nor estimates the likelihood that anyone in the survey will actually vote. You cannot conclude solidly how many more ignorant people support Bush than support Kerry. Hell, Bush could have more non-ignorant total supporters than Kerry. Sure, just like if you drive back a black sheep, all you can say is that it is black on one side since you didn’t see both sides of it. Technically, the correlation seems to be between candidates’ supporters and the knowledge or ignorance on certain issues. It is true that it doesn’t say what is true about the people who actually vote. However, one might imagine that since a reasonable percentage of eligible voters do vote, there won’t be huge differences amongst the population that actually does vote. It would be quite perverse to posit a situation in which the large correlation seen is **substantially** altered when you consider only actual voters. [And, indeed, while pollsters like Gallup who distinguished between registered voters and those likely to vote do their correction, it shifts the results in polls of Kerry vs. Bush somewhat but not a huge amount.] ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/43 "2004-11-11T22:13:00Z")
I agree that we need to be careful about confusing correlation and cause. The survey in question shows only that there is a significant positive **correlation** among potential voters between ignorance on certain issues and support for Bush. We can’t draw the conclusion that the ignorance **causes** the support for Bush. However, I disagree with the argument that a study that shows only correlation and not cause is useless or counterproductive. Heck, there are major medical studies that show only correlation without identifying any causal mechanism, but the results are still quite significant. Studies of causality are good too, though. If anybody wants to draft a sample survey that purports to test whether there really is a **causal** link between ignorance on particular political issues and support for a particular candidate, I’d like to see what they come up with. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/44 "2004-11-11T23:09:40Z")
**Maeglin** : > [@](#): > > Studies that report only association in highly politicized issues are, I believe, unfortunate and intentionally misleading. What do they really tell you: are there more ignorant Bush voters than Kerry voters? Or is the probability of being ignorant higher if you are a Bush voter? Or is the probability of voting for Bush higher if you are ignorant? Or does ignorance merely correlate with something else that really drives the association? I don’t think that correlation studies have to be intentionally misleading when it comes to politics. As long as no one is trying to pronounce as fact that ignorance is the cause of Bush-support (and vice versa), I don’t see what the problem is. The interesting thing about this study is that it demonstrates that Bush and Kerry supporters aren’t simply the same people except with different political preferences; they are significantly different with respect to awareness. However, it is very true that there may be major confounders at work. Kerry-supporters may have more time on their hands to read newspapers and watch TV. Bushites may be older than Kerryites and thus, less likely to engage in informative internet discussions such as this one (just speculation). Both leisure time and age may be factors more closely associated with voter preference than awareness, and the seeming associating between awareness and voter preference is just the by-products of the other factors. However, that doesn’t take away from the studies’ conclusion or imply that the results are “intentionally misleading”. It just means there may be other factors at work that need to be controlled for. > [@](#): > > It is one thing to conduct epidemiology studies that are peer-reviewed. Simply associating two phenomena and tossing the results to the wolves is irresponsible, misleading, and, as I argued earlier, not all that informative. I believe that there is more information contained in associating, say, side effects with a medical treatment than support of Bush with ignorance. You have a very strong prior belief that the side effects are driven by the medicine, and you can give placebos to a control group. \*\*In politics, having a similar set of priors is very dangerous and there are no control groups. \*\* This is a good point, but keep in mind that this is not a study attempting to prove that ignorance leads to Bush-support. Temporality of the outcome and factor can not be establishment by polling. In a cohort study (which flows forward in time) designed to test whether a drug produces a certain side-effect, you most certainly can show that drug X leads to outcome Y, by contrasting the test group with a placebo group. The PIPA study, by design, was never intended to do that. Don’t want you to compare apples and oranges. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/45 "2004-11-11T23:46:25Z")
**Kimstu** > [@](#): > > Studies of causality are good too, though. If anybody wants to draft a sample survey that purports to test whether there really is a causal link between ignorance on particular political issues and support for a particular candidate, I’d like to see what they come up with. I think in order to establish cause, the focus would have to be on the study itself, not the survey. There’s two ways we could go about it. The first way, which is cheaper but establishes causality less confidently, is a case-control study. Find 1000 people who voted for Bush (case group) and then compare their ignorance levels with, say, 4000 people who did not vote for Bush (control group). This would be done via an odds ratio. If ignorance leads to Bush-support you would expect to see an odds ratio greater than 1, suggesting that Bushites are X as likely to be ignorant than Kerryites. Of course, in this situation, pains would have to be taken to control for confounding variables (age, socioeconomics, race, etc) before concluding that ignorance leads to a certain outcome. The second way we could go about it is by a cohort study. For our study sample we’d use 1000 people. One caveat: they’d have to be completely and utterly nonpartisan (good luck with that one!). The sample will then be split into two groups: the “informed” and the “uninformed”. Both groups will have identical characteristics except half the subjects will be unindated with infomation from diverse media outlets via newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, internet, etc. The other half will have only restricted access to information: no newspapers, no internet, little TV. After four years of the experiment, we’d quiz each subject on current events (Iraq, 9/11, Hussein) and we’d also ask each subject who they want to vote for. If more Bush-supporters come out of the “uninformed” group (secondarily confirmed by the quiz), then it suggests a causal relationship exists between ignorance and voter preference. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/46 "2004-11-12T00:12:16Z")
This is what I think upon encountering this survey: 1. I think we all think that a person’s vote should be based on true beliefs about the candidates. 2. Corollary to this, I think we all think that a vote for a candidate not based on true beliefs about that candidate is somehow defective. 3. Pipa’s study shows that the majority of Bush’s supporters have false beliefs about some key facts regarding Bush as a candidate. 4. From 2 and 3, I can conclude that a majority of Bush votes were somehow defective. Taking this conclusion as established, I go on to think “Were I a Bush voter, I would have a prima facie case that I ought to look into the possibility that my own vote was defective in that it was based on false beliefs about Bush as a candidate.” These conclusions, and I think nothing else significant, are what I take away from the survey. Should I not take even these away from the survey? Are there other things I _can_ take away from it? Thanks for your help. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/47 "2004-11-12T00:47:08Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > This is what I think upon encountering this survey: > > 1. I think we all think that a person’s vote should be based on true beliefs about the candidates. > 2. Corollary to this, I think we all think that a vote for a candidate not based on true beliefs about that candidate is somehow defective. > 3. Pipa’s study shows that the majority of Bush’s supporters have false beliefs about some key facts regarding Bush as a candidate. > 4. From 2 and 3, I can conclude that a majority of Bush votes were somehow defective. You have done what **Magelin** said the paper was designed to get you to do. We have no evidence that the people actually voted based on their understanding of these issues. Correlation is not causation. Being massively uninformed about a candidates stand on issue X is no big deal if you are a single-issue voter and that issue is issue Y, or Z, or Q, or F. These votes can in no way be considered “defective” because the issue they were misinformed about was not part of the reason they supported Bush. The study seems designed to heavily imply that Bush supporters supported him BECAUSE they were ignorant of the actual situations, but the data needed to draw that conclusion using the tools of statistical sampling was not gathered or analyzed in a way which would settle that question. > [@Frylock](#): > > These conclusions, and I think nothing else significant, are what I take away from the survey. Should I not take even these away from the survey? Are there other things I _can_ take away from it? I would not recommend taking those conclusions. They may be true, but this data doesn’t prove it. What you can take away is that Bush supporters tend to be less informed or outright misinformed on these issues compared to Kerry supporters. The only action plan I would recommend is a massive campaign of information spreading about the facts in Iraq and about the policies/positions of Bush in general. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/48 "2004-11-12T01:17:03Z")
Let me restate my argument: 1. I think we all think it is safe to assume that people’s votes are in fact based on their beliefs about the candidates’ positions. (So let’s take it as given.) 2. I think we all think that a person’s vote should be based on true beliefs about the candidates’ positions. (So let’s take it as given.) 3. Corollary to this, I think we all think that a vote for a candidate not based on true beliefs about that candidate’s position is somehow defective. 4. The questions listed on Pipa’s survey were sufficiently representative of possible beliefs about candidates’ positions. 5. Pipa’s study shows that the majority of Bush’s supporters have false beliefs about some key facts regarding Bush as a candidate. 6. From 1, 3, 4 and 5, I can conclude that a majority of Bush votes were somehow defective. I think this argument is valid, and I think it’s what I really meant by what I said before. Notice I don’t say the study establishes that beliefs strongly determine votes, I just take that as an outside assumption–but a very safe one. Indeed, it seems to me it would be odd to think otherwise. Now, I say the argument is valid, but perhaps it’s not sound. One of the assumptions might be wrong–I think the best candidate is probably number 4. Maybe that’s what you guys have been getting at all along? But don’t misunderstand me to be saying that the study establishes a causal phenomenon in and of itself–clearly the study shows a correlation, but by itself, no causal relationship. I wasn’t saying the study shows a causal relationship. The conclusion of the argument is that a Bush vote is probably defective, where 'defective" means “based on incorrect beliefs.” The study’s role in my argument is not to show that votes were based on incorrect beliefs–it is only to show that there is a correlation between incorrect beliefs and Bush votes. The “based on” part is brought into the argument explicitly as an assumption _not_ based on the study. -FrL- > [@Mtgman](#): > > You have done what **Magelin** said the paper was designed to get you to do. We have no evidence that the people actually voted based on their understanding of these issues. Correlation is not causation. Being massively uninformed about a candidates stand on issue X is no big deal if you are a single-issue voter and that issue is issue Y, or Z, or Q, or F. These votes can in no way be considered “defective” because the issue they were misinformed about was not part of the reason they supported Bush. > > The study seems designed to heavily imply that Bush supporters supported him BECAUSE they were ignorant of the actual situations, but the data needed to draw that conclusion using the tools of statistical sampling was not gathered or analyzed in a way which would settle that question. I would not recommend taking those conclusions. They may be true, but this data doesn’t prove it. What you can take away is that Bush supporters tend to be less informed or outright misinformed on these issues compared to Kerry supporters. The only action plan I would recommend is a massive campaign of information spreading about the facts in Iraq and about the policies/positions of Bush in general. > > Enjoy, > Steven ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/49 "2004-11-12T01:20:39Z")
One other point–from the study by itself, I still think we can conclude that: “If I am a Bush voter, then there is a very good chance I am very misinformed, at least on certain issues.” And if I am indeed a Bush voter, then this should be a significant fact. And I think you just need the study to learn that fact, none of the outside assumptions (however plausible) I mention in my previous post. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/50 "2004-11-12T01:42:55Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > The study seems designed to heavily imply that Bush supporters supported him BECAUSE they were ignorant of the actual situations… Actually, if their hypotheses in the analysis section of the [report](http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf) are more complicated than that and if anything go the other way: > [@](#): > > As discussed, one key possible explanation for why Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had WMD or a major WMD program, and supported al Qaeda is that they continue to hear the Bush administration confirming these beliefs. > > Another possible explanation is that Bush supporters cling to these beliefs because they are necessary for their support for the decision to go to war with Iraq. Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the president would not have. To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions is difficult to bear, especially in light of the continuing costs in terms of lives and money. Apparently, to avoid this cognitive dissonance, Bush supporters suppress awareness of unsettling information. > > This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to their perceptions of world public opinion. Despite an abundance of evidence that world public opinion has opposed the US going to war with Iraq, only 31% of Bush supporters are aware that this is the case, and only 9% are aware that Kerry is a more popular candidate than Bush in world public opinion. > > Finally, Bush supporters also frequently misperceive their candidate’s foreign policy positions. In particular they tend to assume that he supports more pro-multilateral positions than he, in fact, does. In all cases, there is a recurring theme: majorities of Bush supporters favor these positions they impute to Bush. They have trouble believing that Bush does not favor them too. > > So why do Bush supporters show such a resistance to accepting dissonant information? While it is normal for people to show some resistance, the magnitude of the denial goes beyond the ordinary. Bush supporters have succeeded in suppressing awareness of the findings of a whole series of high- profile reports about prewar Iraq that have been blazoned across the headlines of newspapers and prompted extensive, high-profile and agonizing reflection. The fact that a large portion of Americans say they are unaware that the original reasons that the US took military action–and for which Americans continue to die on a daily basis–are not turning out to be valid, are probably not due to a simple failure to pay attention to the news. > > The roots of the resistance to this information very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11, and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. In response to an unprecedented attack on US soil, with the prospect of further such attacks, Bush responded with a grace and resolve that provided reassurance to an anxious public. In the war with the Taliban he showed restraint as well as effectiveness. Large numbers of Americans had a powerful bonding experience with the president–a bond that they may be loath to relinquish. > > When the president turned his focus to Iraq, this robust public support begin to waver. His case about Iraq’s WMD and support for al Qaeda touched a nerve, but most Americans were not entirely convinced of the imperative to act. Most wanted Bush to first get UN support and allied participation before going into Iraq and were willing to stick with the inspection process for a while longer. Many were very wary of the US getting itself into a position reminiscent of Vietnam, when the world turned against the US. > > Nonetheless, the majority was still inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and backed him when he decided to go ahead without UN approval. At the same time, though they acquiesced, a majority of Americans did not actively favor taking action at the time Bush did. This was Bush’s war. > > If all had worked out as advertised, the president’s relation with the public would probably have not missed a beat. While the initial war was easier than the public anticipated, the aftermath was much more difficult and drawn out than originally assumed. Concurrent with these rising costs, the benefits of the war began to be challenged by the failure to find WMD or evidence of Iraqi support for al Qaeda. The extent of international criticism took on tones of the Vietnam period. > > Gradually the support for the decision to go to war and, concomitantly, public confidence in the president, began to wither. Moving in tandem down this slowly descending arc were the declining beliefs that Iraq had WMD and links to al Qaeda, and that world public opinion approved of the US going to war with Iraq. > > But now, while others have peeled off, Bush supporters continue to hold onto their image of Bush as a capable protector. To do this it appears that many need to continue to screen out information that undermines this image. > > Bush appears to assume that his support is fragile. He refuses to admit to making any mistakes. He admits that he was surprised that WMD were not found, but does not say that the most reasonable conclusion is that they were never there and continues to talk about “disarming” Iraq. He asserts that he never said that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, but maintains that there were contacts with al Qaeda in a way that implies that they were significant. Most telling, his supporters as well as his opponents overwhelmingly say that they hear him still saying that Iraq had WMD and supported al Qaeda. To remain loyal and bonded to him means to enter into this false reality. > > Bush may be right. Admitting his mistakes may shatter his idealized image in a way that some supporters may not forgive. But there also risks in succeeding in getting elected based on false beliefs. The number of people in the public who see through the illusion will likely continue to grow, eating away at the implied mandate of an election. Further, the cohesion of society can be damaged by a persisting and fundamental division in the perception of what is real, undermining pathways to consensus and mutual sacrifice, and making the country increasingly difficult to govern. I do agree that these explanations are in the realm of conjecture. But I also don’t think that “Bush supporters supported him BECAUSE they were ignorant of the actual situations” is a very good summary of the above arguments. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/51 "2004-11-12T02:57:46Z")
Well, if I read it right, they are more suggesting in spite of rather than because of. And I think their assessment that the tenacity of their affection does indeed result from a “bonding” experience born of trauma makes all the sense in the world. This at least adds a human dimension to what is otherwise perplexing. If I may indulge an understatement, perplexing. I didn’t see what they saw. He went where he was supposed to go, said the things he was supposed to say. The role of the leader in this situation is scripted, we knew what we expected, he knew what we expected. It could have been filled from Central Casting. He took no risks, committed no heroisms. All he needed to do was follow the mutually accepted script, and he would be swamped in approval and respect, nay, adulation. We forget that just prior to that awful day, his approval was, at best, mediocre. He looked destined to muddle through a term without mucking it up too badly. Perhaps this is when he was siezed by the notion of himself as a Leader of Men, a collossus leaving his mark on history. Lincoln, Roosevelt, Bush… So what I think is: they are as cognizant of the facts as any of us, they simply make an assumption we don’t make: that there is a hidden factor that would make it all turn right. The WMD were spirited away, Jane Fonda’s got 'em, something. Because they _know_ that The Leader would not take them astray, therefore there _must_ be some unknown factor. It reminds of Reagan speech about Irangate: how he knew in his heart he was innocent, but the facts spoke differently. In essence, he apologized on behalf of the facts, how they had failed to reflect the deeper truth. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/52 "2004-11-12T09:30:56Z")
Well we all seem to agree that the **interpretation** of the results is somewhat subjective. But the results **themselves** remain solidly in their bunk despite the attempts to dislodge them therefrom. Bush supporters were **undeniably** _vastly_ more deluded about these factually incorrect statements, and this study suffers no more “problems” than substantially _any_ political poll. I find the **results themselves** shocking. To me, it appears that some Bush supporters are seeking a way to avoid **accommodating them intellectually** - something of an irony in itself since the study was largely _all about_ [cognitive dissonance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance). ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/53 "2004-11-12T14:40:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Well we all seem to agree that the interpretation of the results is somewhat subjective. But the results themselves remain solidly in their bunk despite the attempts to dislodge them therefrom. This is the real issue. Some posters are reifying the results, as if somehow they express some independent truth or value free of any interpretation. I disagree. A statistic is only as good as it is useful. If these results fuel your indignation, hey, it’s your mental life. If you believe that a statistical result is informative and shocking if it cannot actually be used to infer testable, quantitative conclusions about the state of the world, then I’d say that perhaps you’re too easily shocked. Further research is absolutely necessary before conclusions can be drawn. The authors of the study clearly do not feel that way, for their “analysis” consists of untested, scattershot speculations. Like I said, if this is good enough for you, I rest my case. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/54 "2004-11-12T14:48:41Z")
> [@](#): > > The authors of the study clearly do not feel that way, for their “analysis” consists of untested, scattershot speculations. Like I said, if this is good enough for you, I rest my case. Well, I did say that the _interpretation_ was subjective. So, let us speculate some _other_ explanations for those results in order that we may each choose the explanation which seems most reasonable _to us_. I have yet to see any Bush supporters, or indeed _anyone_, forwarding anything _like_ an alternative explanation. Perhaps they could, at the very least, point me to some _equally clear_ examples of factually incorrect statements believed by _Kerry_ supporters? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/55 "2004-11-12T16:35:14Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Actually, if their hypotheses in the analysis section of the [report](http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf) are more complicated than that and if anything go the other way: > \ > > > [@](#): > > > > Bush may be right. Admitting his mistakes may shatter his idealized image in a way that some supporters may not forgive. But there also risks in succeeding in getting elected based on false beliefs. > > I do agree that these explanations are in the realm of conjecture. But I also don’t think that “Bush supporters supported him BECAUSE they were ignorant of the actual situations” is a very good summary of the above arguments. I’ll gladly admit my eyes glazed during much of that “analysis” section. I put the word analysis in quotations because I didn’t see much that I consider analytical rather than conjectural in that section. I’m open to criticism that I may have misinterpreted it, and I’m not going to defend my interpretation to the death or anything. Still I don’t think my characterization was wholly wrong. I’ve snipped a large deal of the “analysis” quoted, everything but the piece which I think is the most critical. The piece which lead me to say they were implying a substantial fraction of electoral support(enough to “[succeed] in getting elected”) would be “based on false beliefs.” Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/56 "2004-11-12T16:54:14Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > This is the real issue. Some posters are reifying the results, as if somehow they express some independent truth or value free of any interpretation. It all depends on the “truth” you’re trying to glean from the results, doesn’t it? If you’re trying to determine whether Bush and Kerry supporters are equally informed, the results of the study would tell you the answer to that question. If you’re trying to determine whether ignorance causes people to favor Bush over Kerry, then these results will not give you that answer. The only “right” interpretation of the results is that which is answered by the analytical tool designed to answer the “right” question. Any other ideas derived from the results can only be speculation and should be presented as such. A Chi-square test, for example, will not tell you anything about causality, so infering it out of a correlation study is wrong. However, if the study had a cohort design and made use of the appropriate statistics (relative risk, etc.), it would be reasonable to infer the presence or absence of causality between two factors. > [@](#): > > I disagree. A statistic is only as good as it is useful. Why is it _not_ useful to know there is significant difference in awareness between Bush and Kerry supporters? This is where you are losing people. > [@](#): > > If you believe that a statistical result is informative and shocking if it cannot actually be used to infer testable, quantitative conclusions about the state of the world, then I’d say that perhaps you’re too easily shocked. Can you tell me why the conclusion in this case is not testable or “quantitative”? > [@](#): > > Further research is absolutely necessary before conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions can be drawn by this data; they just may be limited conclusions. If scientitists had to wait until every single possible hypothesis surrounding a problem were answered before making one conclusion, they’d never leave grad school. > [@](#): > > The authors of the study clearly do not feel that way, for their “analysis” consists of untested, scattershot speculations. As long as the speculations are presented as speculations, what is the problem? Without speculation, how would future hypotheses be generated? The researchers are only advancing possible explanations for the discrepancies found. This is what science is all about. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/57 "2004-11-12T17:48:37Z")
“Why is it not useful to know there is significant difference in awareness between Bush and Kerry supporters? This is where you are losing people.” I second this. I think this is what I’m not getting. -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/58 "2004-11-12T18:08:49Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > “Why is it not useful to know there is significant difference in awareness between Bush and Kerry supporters? This is where you are losing people.” > > I second this. I think this is what I’m not getting. > > -FrL- If I may, I have been staying out of this discussion because, frankly, the statistics are beyond me. But I believe I can answer this question. Because the question is not finished. If you want to ask “Do Bush supporters have less or more awareness **about the Duefler report**?”, then this poll seems to help. Are there any other more broadly based questions, however, that this poll can answer? Does it really point to a more general unawareness amongst Bush supporters, or does is simply point to an unawareness about a rather small handful of issues. Does that answer the question? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/59 "2004-11-12T18:35:34Z")
\*\* pervert:\*\* > [@](#): > > Because the question is not finished. If you want to ask “Do Bush supporters have less or more awareness about the Duefler report?”, then this poll seems to help. Since the questions in the poll more or less dealt with the contents of the Dueffler report, the study seems to answer the question “Do Bush and Kerry supporters have an equal understanding of the following issues?” pretty well, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111/60 "2004-11-12T19:09:20Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > \*\* pervert:\*\*Since the questions in the poll more or less dealt with the contents of the Dueffler report, the study seems to answer the question “Do Bush and Kerry supporters have an equal understanding of the following issues?” pretty well, I think. Or, more specifically, “Are self-identified Bush and Kerry supporters equally likely to be wrong about their candidates positions on this set of issues?” A question the chi-square analysis of the data would answer well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pipa-report-americans-on-iraq-on-the-eve-of-the-presidential-election/274111.md?page=4)