Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I mean I think this
Most of the questions in the questionnaire are restrictive, leading, and manipulative. The effect is to force respondents into apparent consent to the policy choices set out in the Green Paper. A polling institute which made use of questions of this kind would quickly be challenged and discredited.
is the main point of the letter. Then there are things like "why should one care"? Wallstrom should care because it reflects poorly on the EU's communication strategy, etc.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 11th, 2006 at 08:34:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A polling institute which made use of questions of this kind would quickly be challenged and discredited.

My reading of the above: "A polling institute would have to ask better questions to maintain credibility."

=What are the better questions?

But maybe I shouldn't be in this conversation at all?  (I'm don't think I'm being helpful.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon Sep 11th, 2006 at 08:56:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think this points to the well-known "leading questions are worthless in opinion polls" problem. Afew also says that asking whether the goal is agreed on before asking how to best achieve the goal (leading question) would be an improvement.

All questions are helpful. Convince yourself, then convince a friend, then convince an enemy. You're playing the role of friend needing to be convinced.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 11th, 2006 at 08:59:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series