X-Message-Number: 30343 From: David Stodolsky <> Subject: Re: 1998-2007 Survey Comparison Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:25:41 +0100 References: <> On 12 Dec 2007, at 04:58, Kennita Watson wrote: > I only worked with OpenOffice Calc and my scanty statistics > knowledge, so I wasn't able to get p-values for differences between > males and females; I made do with deciding that a difference in > values of 0.3 or more might be interesting, if not statistically > significant. Values with slashes are AVERAGE/STDEV. > > Number of respondents: > F: 55 56 > M: 35 > > I could accomplish much more with my life if it were significantly > extended. > F: 2.65/1.31 > M: 2.12/1.2 > (corroborates 1998 diff) This is on the border of being significant at the p<.05 level. > > Dealing with wills, insurance policies, and other legal matters is > too much trouble to make Cryonics worthwhile. > F: 2.9/1.17 > M: 3.53/0.98 Significant (p< .018) > > Cryonics is a bad idea because it would lead to an overpopulation > problem. > F: 2.96/1.29 > M: 3.26/1.22 Not Significant > > Cryonically preserving me would be too hard/weird for my family/ > friends to handle. > F: 2.65/1.32 > M: 2.97/1.22 NS > > I would not want to wake up in a future time without my family or > friends around. > F: 2.28/1.25 > M: 2.97/1.21 > (corroborates 1998 diff) > Highly significant. > I believe that Cryonics is an exciting idea an intend on looking into > it further. > F: 3.16/1.30 > M: 2.69/1.28 > (corroborates 1998 diff) Not Significant (p=.4) So, three of six "findings" were significant. The moral to this story is that this type of approximation does not do it. > > In the 2007 survey, women again perceived cryonics as less affordable > than men, but this time not by much (2.51 to 2.48). > > Men again were more excited about a young, healthy body, but only by > a 2.65 to 2.84 margin. > > This time, women and men had almost identical attitudes about > cryonics being immoral, 3.35 to 3.39. This is the question about cryonics being too selfish: Extending one's life span through Cryonics is unnatural, selfish, and immoral. No conclusion can be drawn from a non-significant result. So, we can't say they have almost identical attitudes. > > Unlike on the previous survey, women seemed slightly more inclined to > disagree that people in the future will have no interest in reviving > frozen bodies (3.47 to 3.33). No conclusion can be drawn from non-significant results. It could also result from bad data or a bad question. > > While respondents in age ranges 25-34 and >64 did tend to have > favorable attitudes towards cryonics (to agree more with more of the > negative statements, and disagree more with more of the positive > statements), in my analysis those in the 45-54 age range expressed > those sentiments more strongly, and those under 24 less so. I can't get significance with an overall test, which included all attitude statements and the motivation statement "looking into it" and the statement about being "able to revive a human in 100 years", either with all age group comparison or comparison to the 45-54 yr. old group, which means that the individual tests are suspect. However, the following were significant when comparing 45-54 yr. olds and others with a t-test: no loss due to ageing young again too young looking into it further I repeated the age related tests after log transforming the data, since some of the data clearly was non-normal. Overall test yielded significant multivariate results for age groups, but not for the 45-54 age group. An ordinal logistic fit predicting age groups from responses showed the following were significant: no guarantee accomplish more optimistic future young again too costly overpopulation too weird too young [sig. dif. comparing 45-54 (Age group 4) vs 25-34 (Age group 2)] without friends [sig. dif. comparing <24 (1) vs 35-44 (3)] It certainly is no surprise that the response 'too young' was different with different age groups. The overall trend is that the young tend to agree that they are "too young." Both those under 35 (1+2) and those over 64 (6) tended to agree that waking up in the future without friends would be unacceptable. This supports the previous findings that middle age is when people come to terms with existential questions (these people would be more concerned about personal survival than continuing social relationships as compared to other age groups). These overall significant results in comparing age groups support the quality of the data as being adequate for analysis. However, the data set is noisy. For example, the question: I believe that Cryonics is an exciting idea an (sic) intend on looking into it further. was repeated, separated by three questions, and the first accounted for only 43% of the variation in the second (non-parametric r-squared) (includes 'Don't know' responses). Cronback's Alpha on the data without the Don't Knows was .76. However, after deleting 5 outliers on the two question comparison, the value of r-squared is .81 and the Alpha is about the same. Two of these saboteurs (who indicated agree on one question and disagree on the other) requested membership literature from all organizations, out of a total of 6 requests for membership info. So, it looks like a data accuracy prize is needed at this venue. There was an error made in constructing the response scale (a central 'neutral' value, however, this is mitigated by use of an explicit "Don't Know"), so there is plenty of room for improvement. Anyway, I'd like to thank Kennita Watson for the data. And since the data allows comparison with the Badger 1998 work, we are heading in the right direction. dss PS: I once again urge anyone collecting survey data to consult with someone who has an earned research degree within the social sciences from an accredited university *before* starting to administer it. The earlier in the process you get assistance, the more likely the results will be useful. Getting survey data is not rocket science, but getting any useful results with a survey is! David Stodolsky Skype: davidstodolsky Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30343