X-Message-Number: 27785
References: <>
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Evaluating the survey results
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:28:37 +0200

On 21 Mar 2006, at 22:04,  wrote:

> (  http://www.benbest.com/sandbox/Display_Survey_7.php)
>   The answers to question (18) clearly indicate that the
> respondents are cryonicists. The majority have made
> cryonics arrangements for cryopreservation and with one
> exception the rest intend-to or want-to. Even though
> the survey was posted to the Cryonics Institute Forum,
> it was also posted to the Cryonics Society of Canada
> list and to CryoNet, so I find it surprising that
> more respondents had made cryonics arrangements with
> CI than with Alcor.

This difference is not significant in either data set. The  
differences among all responses is, however.

>    Male respondents outnumbered females by about 8 to 1,

These differences are highly significant (both data sets).

> Respondent age centers on the 40s, in agreement with
> the average age of CI Members.

In both data sets, the middle-aged (40-49) groups are significantly  
over represented. About a third of all respondents fall into this age  
range. If this indicates an increase in existential concerns in this  
age group, then targeting marketing toward this group could yield  

>   Returning to the beginning of the survey, it is nice
> to see that so many of the respondents feel so positive
> about life. It would be interesting to compare quality
> of life assessments of cryonicists with that of the
> general public.

A random sample would benefit any marketing effort directed to the  
general public.

>  I don't know
> what to make of the wide spread in question (17)
> concerning the chances of future reanimation. A fifth of
> the respondents are what I would call extreme optimists
> with 98-100% chance of success estimated.

The distribution is sig.

> (  http://www.benbest.com/sandbox/Display_Survey_8.php )

>   In questions (3) and (4) I evidently should have chosen
> larger time-spans for delay because about a quarter of the
> respondents took more than 6 years to decide they wanted
> cryonics or would make arrangements. I actually thought
> that more than 28% would have thought they wanted
> cryopreservation upon first learning of the idea.

These differences are highly significant.

>   Question (5) was my attempt to clarify question (14)
> from the earlier survey. With all that has been written
> about vitrification, I am shocked that 37% deny that
> freezing damage in the brain can be eliminated with
> current practice and only 14% believe that freezing damage
> to the brain can definitely be eliminated.


A failure to comment doesn't mean a result is significant or non- 

Graphs and test results can be seen here:



David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27785