Why would you prefer informed decisions?
I fail to see how more informed decisions would mean better decisions; if anything that would almost guarantee worse ones.
A very bad idea, the 2011 census long form will be voluntary
- Thread starter Tonington
- Start date
Why would you prefer informed decisions?
I fail to see how more informed decisions would mean better decisions; if anything that would almost guarantee worse ones.
It's not just government that uses that data Scott, R&D uses it as well. Small businesses use it. Big businesses use it. StatsCan has high quality data, we should try to ensure high quality data whenever possible.
I don't see why anyone would possibly want to have poor quality data when you can have better, it makes no logical sense at all.
I don't see why anyone would possibly want to have poor quality data when you can have better, it makes no logical sense at all.
They use the data for what then? Is it to your benefit or detriment? (both rhetorical)
I'm not so trusting as you it seems.
I'm not so trusting as you it seems.
They (StatsCan users) use data for all sorts of things. And they can be anyone.
Say you want to start a small business. Your company sells a service. But you need a loan to procure supplies and infrastructure for your business. You will need a business proposal before any bank even thinks of lending you the money. If the demographics you use to build expected sales aren't a accurate representation of the population you're targetting, then your expected revenue could be very wildly different. If the loan is granted, the bank, and the small business owner are at a greater risk of loaing their investment/business.
What looks like a good opportunity can be a bad opportunity.
I don't really understand why anyone would think poor quality data is a better product.
Say you want to start a small business. Your company sells a service. But you need a loan to procure supplies and infrastructure for your business. You will need a business proposal before any bank even thinks of lending you the money. If the demographics you use to build expected sales aren't a accurate representation of the population you're targetting, then your expected revenue could be very wildly different. If the loan is granted, the bank, and the small business owner are at a greater risk of loaing their investment/business.
What looks like a good opportunity can be a bad opportunity.
I don't really understand why anyone would think poor quality data is a better product.
Yes, that is hard to understand.
This isn't an ad hominem (I am being sincere): How is it possible that you could so misunderstand such a simple concept except that you are driven by some motivation? I don't believe you're that stupid.
Perhaps you should revisit some history and see just how census data can be misused.
Is everything a pissing match with you?
I forgot to return the last census and I got calls from the Bureau indicating that I had better call them and fill out the long-form one over the phone- THAT was fun
Communication is a two way street Scott.
So far what you've given me in this conversation is an affirmative statement towards accepting poor quality data over better quality data that we have now.
If I'm wrong about that, then please tell me in concise terms what your position actually is.
It's clear that you take a bent on this issue that government shouldn't make decisions for you, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that point. What I said clearly at the outset is that politicians will be using this data, they have to when they estimate revenue, when they propose new legislation. It's also used by the watch dogs, and by regulators. It's used by citizens to call bull $hit on the government as well.
But if the data doesn't allow us to call bull $hit, then that's shifting power towards the law makers...
I'm stating that I think what we have with Stats Canada right now is very good. It's methodology that you will find in all the statistics journals, all the statistics text books, and used around the world by the best statisticians. The data that they collect isn't used just by political parties and government.
Have you ever tried to find data before? Freely available data is somewhat hard to come by, depending on the subject. Freely available quality data is even harder to get. Some of StatsCan products aren't free, since they have proprietary models. If I'm paying for a product from StatsCan, I don't want it based on shoddy, biased data. I want the best.
Scott, all data can be misused, whether the quality is good or bad. But not everyone who uses StatsCan census data is doing so with nefarious intent. I don't see the merit in destroying something useful for most users because of the potential for misuse.
I can't think of a single abuse of StatsCan census data in my lifetime. You're older, perhaps you can point me to one.
- It isn't useful to us all. It may be useful to some people.
- I know you don't see the point.
- You are obviously much more trusting than I am but that trust isn't a warrant to justify itself. Just because you're not a wicked person doesn't mean that they don't exist. Just because you may have good intentions doesn't mean that is the default case. IMO most people only have their own best interests at heart and most of the time that conflicts with my best interest. Not always but enough that I don't feel comfortable giving them information about myself.
Since when has the federal government ever cared what anyone West of Ontario thinks or has unless they are looking to steal something? If I have one toilet or two or three or an outhouse is none of their concern.
Can you name a single instance where Canadian Census data has been misused, yes or no?
Yet I'm sure you file tax returns every year.
Some people use guns to harm others as well, I don't think that means we should get rid of all guns.
Canada is a corporation. It makes decisions based on corporate needs and until it starts to operate in the interests of the people, they can stuff their census forms.
This has been a conversation (thus far) about census in general not about specific census events therefore your question is irrelevant and not topical.
I'm sure I could find many examples if that were the topic and I were inclined, but it isn't and I'm not. I only have horrific historic examples and lets face it, decades of nice census gathering would mean little against that.
That is like comparing nuclear bombs to spit balls; how ridiculous!
For instance?
I have one. Suppose the fed gov't was somehow convinced that 95% of the population of ON, AB, and BC was speaking Mandarin, perhaps they'd feel that making Mandarin an official language would be cool. Then they checked the stats to see just how much Mandarin was being spoken and found that there really wasn't much.
Suppose they got it in their heads that we should adopt "Wild Thing" or "Feelings" as our National Anthem. How would they know we don't unless they asked questions?
Or if they wanted to find out how many kids there were in Canada in comparison to how many have died in a certain period in order to see what our child mortality rate was.
Or what the average wages were for certain genres of jobs in order to amend tax laws. Like I'd love to be taxed at the highest rate. :roll:
hhmmm
Last edited:
You have had approx 4 years of Steve's loving touch now, enough of your inferiority complex.
It's entirely relevant. You're saying that I'm too trusting, and you're saying you don't trust them with your demographic input. I'm asking you this question, because if you have no reason to distrust Stats Canada beyond just distrusting them, then it's just paranoia on your part. I'm asking because I want to see if your mistrust is based on actual events. Your previous response indicated that a perusal of history might reveal something. I don't know if you were meaning in another country, or referring specifically to Canada. That would be a relevant distinction to make...
There has to my knowledge, never been any instance where any identifiable personal information of respondants to the census has been placed into the public, or used for fraudulent purposes.
Perform an experiment Scott, try to access the personal data people have given to Stats Canada. Post your results.
What is slated to happen is this: data collected by Canadians, used by Canadians, used for Canadians, is about to lose some of it's integrity.
To the contrary, I don't find your hypothetical misuse of census data to be a compelling argument for why we should give up good quality data.
If that were true your conclusion wouldn't follow with certainty. You would be making a subjective judgment of my motivations.
What you are actually doing is trying to change the subject from the general to the specific. Somehow you think that if I can't give you a specific example that that would be relevant to a general discussion. That kind of irrational fallacy is very dangerous but a common enough tactic around here. Suppose you had convinced a Jew just befor Nazi germany to provide demographic information. Surely your "logic" would be as convincing then as it is now. "When specifically has the German government done anything to you? Name one thing just one tiny little thing...."
I am amused by your nativity.
OH, here and other countries. The where is irrelevant. Bad things can happen anywhere - Canada too.
So what? That doesn't mean it isn't so. Your ignorance doesn't reduce risk to yourself and your family.
BTW, you're making an argument from ignorance and it is fallacious.
I'd be more interested in what CSIS or the CIA could find. We live in extraordinary times and no one knows what the future holds. Don't fool yourself.
So you've been told. Do you believe everything you're told?
Then I recommend you do that.
BTW, yes I do know of specific missuses of census information, but they are irrelevant to this conversation. If you can figure out why we can continue but if you're not capable of that then this will have to be the end of it.
Last edited:
It's not so I've been told. The Cabinet of our Government decided this was going to happen. I know it will create poor quality data, because of well known biases in voluntary survey reporting. It's not going to be a random sample of the population, because response rates are very dependent on income and education. People without much education, or without much money are more resentful of questions about their income and education... the conclusions anyone tries to make from the Census data will now be suspect. There's nothing you or the Government can say which will remove the error from this form of population sampling.
Sampling bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sampling bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think it’s a major mistake for Her Majesty’s Government for Canada (particularly through the use of an Order of the Governor General-in-Council) to have dealt such a serious blow to the information resources of Statistics Canada. Obviously, participation in the census is going to plummet as a result of making the long-form census voluntary; we should be endeavouring to ensure that the information gathered by Statistics Canada is, if anything, more detailed.
Most Canadians don't know more than the per cent sign for a statistic, let alone what a sampling bias is, what a representative sample is, and why randomization is key.
It's humorous to me, Scott appears fine with Government giving us poor information about Canada. It appears to be a common theme with this government. They are controlling what information we have about our own country, by either eliminating it, or tampering with the reliability of the data.
Ottawa should come to its census: Stop dogging Statscan - The Globe and Mail
It's humorous to me, Scott appears fine with Government giving us poor information about Canada. It appears to be a common theme with this government. They are controlling what information we have about our own country, by either eliminating it, or tampering with the reliability of the data.
Ottawa should come to its census: Stop dogging Statscan - The Globe and Mail