The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Statistical Voodoo Witch Doctor Tapped for Census Post

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Statistical Voodoo Witch Doctor Tapped for Census Post

By Matthew Vadum on 4.3.09 @ 11:16AM

A practitioner of the statistical voodoo known as "sampling" has been selected by President Obama to head the Census Bureau, which is poised to carry out the decennial census next year with ACORN's help. Liberal pressure groups and Democrats have long favored using statistical modeling, a practice controversial because it's flagrantly unconstitutional and because it opens up the counting process to political manipulation.

"A sampling process would open the census to the worst kind of political manipulation," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) recently said. "The Constitution clearly requires a count of every person, not a best guess that could be influenced by political rather than empirical considerations."

The president's nominee is Robert M. Groves, a professor of the alleged discipline known as sociology at the University of Michigan.

Republican lawmakers are justifiably alarmed, the New York Times reports.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), senior Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said the nomination "is an incredibly troubling selection that contradicts the administration's assurances that the census process would not be used to advance an ulterior political agenda."

During his confirmation hearing, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke testified that "It is my understanding that there are no plans to use any type of statistical sampling with respect to population count."

Perhaps Locke was telling the truth. Maybe the Obama administration didn't brief him on its Census pick.

View all comments (13) | Leave a comment

Bill Bailey| 4.3.09 @ 12:21PM

Locke was telling the truth? Give me a break.

Bob| 4.3.09 @ 3:42PM

Here we go again. Vadum is another right wing whacko who eschews anything intellectual or has any reasonable comprehension. Here is the bio to which Vadum refers:

"Dr. Groves studies how alternative research designs affect the utility of data collected. His current research focuses on social and cognitive theory development regarding decisions to participate in statistical surveys, as a vehicle to construct survey statistics with lower nonresponse errors. He has studied the impact of mode of data collection, interviewer behavior, and use of computer assistance on the quality of survey data."

This is NOT statistical sampling. It is how to structure the collection of data to insure that you get the maximum number of responses. This is what occurs when uneducated ideologues comment on something they know little about.

I've been criticized here for "inferences". This kind of inference is far worse than anything I've said. In fact, this kind of methodology REDUCES bias -- it does not increase it. It will favor Democrats, but not because of sampling. Traditionally, lower socio-economic populations are more difficult to reach and this guy is an expert at reaching these people. It might actually be better at fulfilling the Constitution than previous methodologies that would undercount this economic strata by scheduling surveys in these neighborhoods when these people are at work, etc.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with the field of sociology -- it is just as disciplined as any other social science including psychology and political science. In fact, it is the closest relation to political science as they share many of the same theories.

Bill Bailey| 4.3.09 @ 3:57PM

Bob:

The articles linked to reference the professor's background in sampling which extends both to his previous employment in government and to his academic research.

Nice try.

Matthew Vadum| 4.3.09 @ 3:58PM

Sociology is, more or less, Marxism. It is a stretch to call it a discipline.

Bob| 4.3.09 @ 4:39PM

Bill, I'm afraid you didn't understand the bio. Using computers to maximize hitting the right person at the right time is NOT modeling. When I did corporate research, I often used models to determine where I should conduct quantitative research to get the proper results. His research determines why a person will participate in a survey. Modeling is NOT done by sociologists, but by mathematicians. If you want a detailed explanation, let me know, but read the bio carefully and you'll see what I mean. If there is anything specific you want to understand better, let me know. But there is NOTHING in the bio to indicate that he would count using sampling. There is content in the bio that says he probably knows how to reach people better than the average person. Reaching the most people does advantage Democrats -- but that is clearly Constitutional.

Matthew, are you kidding me? You have a master's degree -- how can you believe such tripe? It is true that Marx was a sociologist, but he used sociology to promote a particular political framework. It is sort of like saying that since David Duke was a Republican that all Republicans are skinheads.

Since you obviously are in need of some education, I encourage you to read some of the more conservative sociologists like Albert Hobbs and Robert Nisbet. You are confusing a field of study with the more liberal leanings of the people that teach sociology in universities. Like many professors in universities, sociology professors tend to be more liberal, just like they are in history, psychology, political science, etc. It sound like you have limited your reading to right wing blogs.

We often used sociologists in business to conduct more predictive marketing research studies. It was important to get predictive results as inaccurate studies caused us to spend capital on projects that would not give us a profitable return on investment.

Ignorance is not an excuse in this case.

KevlarKevin| 4.4.09 @ 1:26AM

More trollish condescension. Bob, STFU. A conservative sociologist? Isn't that somewhat like a moderate member of the Taliban? Next you'll have us searching the countryside for unicorns.

MikeM| 4.4.09 @ 9:32AM

Bob, is being "intellectual" different from being "practical" of "realistic." If so, why should be prefer "intellectual" over the others? BTW, I have two degrees and more than 70 years of the experience called living.

Bob| 4.4.09 @ 10:01AM

Kevlar -- when you tell me you've read these sociologists, I'll take your comments seriously. Otherwise, you show the same lack of intellectual curiosity as George Bush. That was really good for our country.

MikeM -- there is no reason you can't be both intellectual and realistic/pragmatic. I have 3 degrees and over 60 years of experience and I still use my mind. I lived the American dream -- coming from a poor ghetto neighborhood, leaving home at 15, fighting in a war, going to the best schools, traveling the world, having great children, and marrying an unbelievable person. I'll compare my "living" with yours.

Being a conservative used to mean you thought about the issues. Today it just means you believe in religious dogma. It sounds like you found your niche.

MikeM| 4.4.09 @ 12:09PM

Bob, I do not want to waste time on this, but you certainly show no inhbition in using a tiny amount of information to jump to the wrong conclusion ( I am not religious, come from a blue collar background, have served in the military and traveled the world.) Regarding sociology's standing, I am trying to recall a book I read in the 1970s by an academic named Andreski, (Stanislov?) titled, I think, "Sociology as Withcraft." You might also read some of Thomas Sowell's comments on the "merits" of sociology. You remind me of myself when I was 18 and knew it all. I could not understand why others did not think the same way.

Bob| 4.4.09 @ 12:47PM

Actually, Mike, we are not that different in age -- only a few years. I do believe in experience. But experience without the context of a larger sphere based upon the knowledge of many (i.e., intellectualism), is both limited and misleading. For example, you'll see people here say that lower taxes are stimulative to the economy because you individually have more to spend. However, if you actually crunch the macro numbers, you find that not only are lower taxes not any more stimulative than higher taxes, but they almost always result in significantly higher debt levels.

As to critics on sociology, you will find critics of almost any intellectual enterprise. It is not hard to find treatises on these subjects. I would expect to find ideologues claiming "expertise" on such matters -- especially when they impede upon their dogmas.

You are now 70 years old and you are also acting as a know it all -- i.e., I know because I lived it. There are many subdisciplines within sociology -- but I'm sure you know that given your "life" experiences. Some of those subdisciplines are indeed ideological, and many are not. Treating a subject matter with such a broad brush would not be something I'd expect from a person "with two degrees".

Matt| 4.6.09 @ 4:56PM

A complete innumeration of EVERY person in the nation is spelled out clearly in the constitution. So, what do we do one people aren't reachable in the effort to innumerate? Is it more "constitutional" to ignore this people...note we wouldn't have a full count, OR to adjust for those that were missed?