Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Poll: Correlation Between American Politics & Side Played in WAR?
zmortis
Member Posts: 152
I'm just interested if a poll will reveal any correlation between political identity and the side played in WAR. I encourage people to answer honestly, but don't post if you want your vote to be annonymous. First column is political identity, second column is WAR main character Avatar identity.
Have fun.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
nvm.. i did read tittle which actually explains more than ur whole 3-5 lines of useless text. no wonder i couldnt understand what the hell.. only nuts ( everyone know who ) can think of politics and game.. in one thing
I'm not trying to prove any point, but satisfy my curiosity as to whether players of a particular political philosophy are more likely to play one side of the conflict in WAR or another. I've no preconceived notion of what the results might be, but I think it will be interesting no matter what the results are.
I hope this helps.
p.s. the only reason I picked the American Political division is I'm pretty familiar with the political breakdown in the USA, with all of Britain, Europe, and Australia in the mix, it would be hard to define the poll criteria. No offense intended to our non-American neighbors.
I picked Liberal / Order, but I was going to play destruction. I simply decided that I believe Order will be more of an underdog and thats how I've played all MMO's, as the underdog.
I'm not a " Liberal " but I agree with the Liberal ideas the most. I'm voting for Barack Obama. Honestly I hope this election proves once and for all to the majority of the people that a two party system is not working. There shouldnt be just 2 major options to pick for being the President of the United States.
I understand what he meant entirely, and I'm assuming that if you understood what he was actually talking about, you would probably pick conservative / destruction.
Just...no.
You're going to have an issue with confounding variables if you try to do any type of regression or correlation study.
You see?
Conservatives are trying to destroy your country! *winks*
And I know what Gustav will vote. Heck, he even wanted to visit the Republican Convention!
My brand new bloggity blog.
Given the average number of responses on the polls here, I doubt I'll receive a statistically relevant number of responses anyway. I'm happy with this just being a informal "fun" poll without serious overtones, or extreme debate. I do work with several mathmaticians, so I'm sure I can get them to do the number crunching if the sample size becomes a relevant percentage of players in WAR. However, I'm just a former English Major, with a job in the US Government IT sector. So don't expect too rigorous of a mathmatical and statistical sampling from me.
I hope this helps.
who cares about north american poltics.. never saw any politics there anwyay just 2 sides of a coin.
on the other hand, light and darkness, order and anarchy/chaos, white and black, were always oposite poles of the same stick.
Now wich country or politic system is on wich side of the pole.. its debatable.
PS: for instance Tolkien in the Lord of the Rings associates the Allied forces to the 'light' side with elven hobbits etc.. and the 'dark' side to the Axis..
Gotta love that last option:
"Uncertain / HordeAlliance"
and i plan to play both Order and Destruction so...
Sorry, I just needed a catch all for none of the above, and that seemed the most humorous way to do it. hehe.
Just ignore the word "American" in the OP title. The poll options represent broad political philosophies, not necessarily American perspectives.
Given the average number of responses on the polls here, I doubt I'll receive a statistically relevant number of responses anyway. I'm happy with this just being a informal "fun" poll without serious overtones, or extreme debate. I do work with several mathmaticians, so I'm sure I can get them to do the number crunching if the sample size becomes a relevant percentage of players in WAR. However, I'm just a former English Major, with a job in the US Government IT sector. So don't expect too rigorous of a mathmatical and statistical sampling from me.
I hope this helps.
You don't need all that many responses to make inferences about the population if you draw from a random sample (although this one is not random). However, here your question probably has some bias since many people may see being destruction as negatively related to their chosen political party. Also, any conclusions you reach from the data will be suspect because of the confounding. For example, the population of storks in Europe is highly correlated (p-value<<<0.05) to the birth rate, but obviously storks don't deliver babies.
The above is a complete and utter falsehood. Tolkien himself, long before he died, said that people will attach all sorts of meanings to what he was writing and that they were all categorically wrong. There is no allegory in Lord of the Rings, he was merely writing a new mythology for a group of people who's myths were destroyed by the Roman Empire. Look it up and you may learn something.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/7300033012
Given the average number of responses on the polls here, I doubt I'll receive a statistically relevant number of responses anyway. I'm happy with this just being a informal "fun" poll without serious overtones, or extreme debate. I do work with several mathmaticians, so I'm sure I can get them to do the number crunching if the sample size becomes a relevant percentage of players in WAR. However, I'm just a former English Major, with a job in the US Government IT sector. So don't expect too rigorous of a mathmatical and statistical sampling from me.
I hope this helps.
You don't need all that many responses to make inferences about the population if you draw from a random sample (although this one is not random). However, here your question probably has some bias since many people may see being destruction as negatively related to their chosen political party. Also, any conclusions you reach from the data will be suspect because of the confounding. For example, the population of storks in Europe is highly correlated (p-value<<<0.05) to the birth rate, but obviously storks don't deliver babies.
If you make inferences about a projected 500-800k population based on 40 poll responses, your margin of error is HUGE. And that's assuming the poll is absolutely flawless. Unfortunately, polling as a method for gathering information is inherently flawed, particularly so when special steps to eliminate some flaws cannot or are not taken. In short: the OP cannot expect to use this data to draw any kind of causal relationship at all.
However, assuming the poll were strong enough to indicate a legitimate correlative relationship, the fact that such a relationship exists indicates the possibility for a causal relationship. You are right in saying that it is possible that the results have been counfounded (or, as we say in America, that the relationship is solely correlative and not causal), however this is simply a possibility. It may be the case, for example, that certain philosophies that define liberals as liberal also tend to bias them toward a particular side due to the motifs employed by or for that side. Thus, while being liberal is not ultimately the cause of rolling Order (hypothetically, for example), it is indicative of an underlying cause which, for all intents and purposes, quite literally is almost exactly the same thing as the state of "being liberal."
Not to flame you OP, but this post has little to no substance whatsoever. First off, liberal and conservative represent someone's fiscal and social values, where as independent refers to one's political affiliation.
Secondly, the correlation is one of the weakest ways to draw a conclusion. For example, say I interview 50 people under 5 feet tall and 50 people over 5 feet tall, then asked them if they like Italian food. The 5+ ft. people all said yes, where only half of the less-than-5 ft people said yes. The only conclusion I could draw is that all people over 5 ft tall like Italian food. Do you see how flawed the example correlation is? It's about the same as the one you posted.
As I said, not to flame, but hopefully you are spared the acrimony that I'm sure is bound to come of it.
Given the average number of responses on the polls here, I doubt I'll receive a statistically relevant number of responses anyway. I'm happy with this just being a informal "fun" poll without serious overtones, or extreme debate. I do work with several mathmaticians, so I'm sure I can get them to do the number crunching if the sample size becomes a relevant percentage of players in WAR. However, I'm just a former English Major, with a job in the US Government IT sector. So don't expect too rigorous of a mathmatical and statistical sampling from me.
I hope this helps.
You don't need all that many responses to make inferences about the population if you draw from a random sample (although this one is not random). However, here your question probably has some bias since many people may see being destruction as negatively related to their chosen political party. Also, any conclusions you reach from the data will be suspect because of the confounding. For example, the population of storks in Europe is highly correlated (p-value<<<0.05) to the birth rate, but obviously storks don't deliver babies.
Ah, your point is taken and understood. So far the early results of the poll seem to indicate there is no direct correlation between political philosophy and game enjoyment choices (at least in terms of potential WAR players). This coincidentially may indicate that people with different political philosophies may have more in common than they believe (at least more than when you hear them talking politics with each other). The poll is early yet, but I'm finding the results pretty fascinating.
Also, as far as people answering the poll dishonestly (to make their political philosophy more respectable). I hope that not too many people are that wrapped up in promoting their political philosophy that they need to be dishonest about what side they are going to play in WAR to make their philosophy "look better".
I hope this helps.
Lol, I voted to see the results - but lets be serious, there is no link to this game and american politics. Nor any other nations politics for that matter.
To suggest so is stupidity.
Im not American, but would defend America tomorrow if there was a war, where does that put me? Firmly in the U.K! ;-)
Your post is not taken as a flame, and your insight is valuable. I'm not a pollster by trade, so pointing out the flaws will help me make better forum polls in the future, so the assistance is welcome. However, I did mention above that reaching a statistically valid sample size was important to drawing a conclusion using correlation, so that unless my sample size reaches a significant portion of the people playing WAR, it is understood by me that the error bars will be enormous.
To use your example: if I interview 1 billion randomly selected people from the planet earth over 5 feet tall and 75% of them say they like Italian food, I would have a high confidence threshold that the majority of the people over 5 feet tall like Italian food.
However, this poll, like the majority of polls here is not intended to be statistically relevant, but just for fun. I'm not using the results for any kind of achedemic study, media distribution, or official record. Though it is theorectically possible that one of the American political campaigns may pick up on this and publish the results in the press to undermine the opposing side. hehe.
I hope this helps.
games-workshop is british so i presume if it has anything to do with politics it would be british politics..there is a whole world outside America you know.
Confounding variables only matter in causative studies, not in correlative statistical tests. The most important thing here is that he probably won't have enough people for a statistically significant sample.
The above is a complete and utter falsehood. Tolkien himself, long before he died, said that people will attach all sorts of meanings to what he was writing and that they were all categorically wrong. There is no allegory in Lord of the Rings, he was merely writing a new mythology for a group of people who's myths were destroyed by the Roman Empire. Look it up and you may learn something.
"In 1916 Tolkien was sent to France, where he and his fellow soldiers faced the terrifying new mechanisms of modern warfare—machine guns, tanks, and poison gas—fighting in some of the bloodiest battles known to human history. Tolkien fought in the Battle of the Somme, a vicious engagement in which over a million people were either killed or wounded.
In the trenches of World War I, Tolkien began recording the horrors of war that would later surface in The Lord of the Rings. Later that year he caught trench fever, an illness carried by lice, and was sent back to England. During his convalescence, he began writing down the stories and mythology of Middle-earth, which would form the basis for The Silmarillion.
...
In the foreword to the second edition of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien wrote, "By 1918, all but one of my close friends were dead." The reader cannot help but notice that the Dead Marshes of Mordor is eerily reminiscent of World War I's Western Front and its utter devastation of life. "
excerpts from : http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngbeyond/rings/influences.html
You might want to check that website and learn a bit more about what has influenced Tolkien in his wondrous writtings.
lol this has the be the oddest thread ive seen in awhile but ill bite.
I am a conservative independent who will be playing both Order and Destruction. Sorry...i didnt see that option in your poll
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
Confounding variables only matter in causative studies, not in correlative statistical tests. The most important thing here is that he probably won't have enough people for a statistically significant sample.
Even at low correlations (p=0), with only about 400 people (which is not uncommon here), you can get about a 0.1 error at the 0.05 level. Your sample doesn't have to be huge to make inferences. Political polls are usually a few thousand people and they draw inferences about populations of millions of people. The most important thing here is that the sampling method is bad, and the question will probably produce bias.
This is all assuming that the correlation is linear in nature.
Also most people don't distinguish between statistically correlated and causality. I assume by the title of the post that the intention is to draw conclusions of the causitive kind.