"Conway says these few gays don't cause a problem now because their homosexuality is not known publicly. But he said if their sexuality does become public, "90 to 95 percent of the Marines" he has informally surveyed are concerned about the consequences. Conway cited impromptu surveys he has conducted by a "show of hands" among Marines at town hall style meetings." quoted from above mentioned FoxNews article.
Sounds like a pretty solid stat to be passing around.
ed. note: not sure if that's the correct pantone for the "sarcasm" statements, but it should read as sarcasm.
Have you got a better stat? Sounds like you are shooting with blanks. I would like to see your stat regarding acceptance of gays by the Marines!
I do not have a better stat, nor was I trying to imply that I did. I believe that a statistic, by a show of hands, at a impromptu meeting, where the desired outcome of the questioner is known by the participants will produce a skewed result set, in favor of the desired outcome. This query probably being taken after the group has been explicitly told the "correct" answer by the leader that the group directly or indirectly reports to.
I am surprised that the reported stat wasn't 100%. My guess as to why it is 95% is because 100% would be blatantly obvious to be inaccurate and we wouldn't want blatant inaccuracy. At 95% others can repeat this statistic with out question or validation.
My Example: My Boss's Boss's Boss's Boss (who controls my entire life, and future income) gets me and a group of coworkers together. He/She explains to me in great detail how and why, at great length, that 2+2 = 5. At the end of his/her discussion, asks "So, by a show of hands, Does 2+2 = 5". I would expect the resultant outcome to be greater than 90%.
I concede that the example above is simplified and asking a question of "presumed fact" and not one of a social nature. It was used to demonstrate a method.