Most people put up with this fucktardery only because they have somewhere to be and don't want to miss their flight.
I wish this were true, but it isn't. I know a number of people who genuinely believe that the TSA procedures are necessary to make sure a terrorist is not going to blow up the plane they are boarding.
How do you propose one come up with valid statistical data on something which is inherently an opinion? Need every single bloody point be scientifically rigorous?
It was a sweeping generalization but fair in context of that persons social network. I also have friends and relatives who believe the same about the TSA.
Usually I'm all for citing, but your persistance in this argument is inconsequential.
If you don't or can't be bothered to do that then you should shut your pie hole.
I'm guessing that it's comments like this ("shut your pie hole") that are creating the sense that the quality of discussion at this site is in decline (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4396747)
> I'm told that polling people can be done accurately and scientifically.
And you believe that?
The way you phrase your poll often determines the answers; the only "accurate" and "scientific" thing you learn is how people answer the questions the way you phrased them.
One of Kahneman's and Tversky's work asked Medical Doctors how they would react in a situation (From memory, can't find the reference right now)
There is a pandemic. With no treatment, everyone will die soon. You have the resources to produce a perfect cure for just 1/4 of the population, or a cure that works with probability 25%, but you can make enough of it for the entire population (expected number of people saved is the same).
Now, half the doctors are asked to decide between:
.... a treatment that deterministically saves 25% of the population from the epidemic, and a treatment that probabilistically saves 25% of the population from the epidemic.
The other half were asked to decide between:
.... a treatment that would let 75% of the population die from the epidemic (deterministically), and one that would probabilistically let 75% of the population die.
The whole test was built so that on average, there's no "right" choice. You just get to choose whether or not you want to determine who lives - but either way, 25% will live, 75% will die.
No, if people were rational (and doctors are supposed to be rational with respect to treatment policy), the way the question is phrased should not make a difference - but it made all the difference.
(K&T have many similar examples, and so does Dan Ariely in "Predictably Irrational").
Now, if the TSA phrases the questions, you can be certain the poll would indicate 95% of the people support the TSAs procedures. If Schneier did, the results would be very different.
Scientifically and accurately portraying the fact that most polls shouldn't be trusted because the person doing them has an agenda.
> > I'm told that polling people can be done accurately and scientifically.
> And you believe that?
Yes.
What you have done is cited people who have shown polling can be done incorrectly. This is not a surprise.
Polling can be done in a correct way and will produce valid results. It costs money, and not everyone _wants_ a poll that is accurate but there you go.
I wish this were true, but it isn't. I know a number of people who genuinely believe that the TSA procedures are necessary to make sure a terrorist is not going to blow up the plane they are boarding.