X-Message-Number: 27796
References: <>
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Evaluating the survey results
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:05:47 +0200

On 3 Apr 2006, at 05:41,  wrote:

> David Stodolsky wrote:
> 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.
>   I find your comment too cryptic to decipher unambiguously.

If we compare CI to Alcor, then the difference between the numbers is  
not significant. This tests the default null hypothesis - half of  
responses fall into each category.

However, if we compare all response options, we can reject the  
hypothesis that chance accounts for the data. This means that people  
could understand the question and make meaningful responses.

>    If I did a survey and found that 50% of the respondents
> were left-handed this would give me some signficant
> information about the population I was sampling insofar
> as 10-15% of the general population is left-handed. Among
> cryonicists, those who have have contracts and funding
> with Alcor outnumber those who have contracts and funding
> with the Cryonics Institute by about 3 to 1. Therefore
> it is significant that in this survey 35% have made
> arrangements with CI and 29% with Alcor:

If the expected ratio (Null Hypothesis) is 3 to 1, then the result is  
significantly different from that expected  (CS data).


David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27796