Posted by CotoBlogzz
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA - I expected that the Community Association Industry (CAI) would not take too kindly to my analysis of the Zogby Methodology, mostly due to what behavioral economist Dan Ariely calls Conflict of Interest and that when the psychological distance between decisions and consequences is vast, it is easier to rationalize.
In the case of Zogby Analytics, while exposed to criticism, it is driven by the profit motive. In my case, for expressing my views, I am exposed to ridicule and criticism, while my motive is strictly a search for the truth.
Earlier today, the CAI's spokesperson, Frank Rathburn responded to my analysis of the Zogby Methodology with personal attacks, questioning not only my journalistic qualifications but also my qualifications to pass judgment on the Zogby Methodology. It turns out, that one does not net to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the CAI-provided document describing the Zogby Methodology wallows in the never never nebulosities of open-ended possibilities.
While I expected that the CAI would object to my analysis in the strongest terms, I expected the argument to be rational. I do no longer mind losing an argument, because it implies I learned something. That we have discussed the issue from different perspectives and cognitive biases have been uncovered. Not so with Mr. Rathburn's response. He not only launches personal attacks, but also defends the Zogby reports saying: John Zogby is one of the most widely respected pollsters in the world, but your “finding” is hardly surprising. Your bias is blatantly obvious."
Of course, CAI is just following a pattern established by the Tobacco and Sugar Industry: Discredit industry critics and cast enough doubt, that politicians and the general population will just support the status quo.
I am sorry that you have taken my position on the Zogby Methodology as a personal affront. It wasn't, nor wast it intended to be.
I also do not want to minimize the qualifications of Zogby Analytics. However, if I were to consider Zogby as a service provider, he would be disqualified, based solely on the basis of the so-called Zogby Methodology as described in the paper you sent me.
However, just like in the case of the author of the Sugar Papers, Frederick Stare, who founded the Department of Nutrition at Harvard University. which he led as a professor of nutrition until his retirement in 1976, despite his credentials, his position on the benefits of sugar consumption have been discredited.
By definition, a methodology describes the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, and analyze information applied to understanding the research problem, thereby, allowing the reader to critically evaluate a study’s overall validity and reliability.
It should answers two main questions: How was the data collected or generated? And, how was it analyzed.
The Zogby Methodology you sent me, fails to answer the basic questions. If you and or Zogby can produce an actual methodology, I would be more than glad to not only review it, but also try to duplicate and publish the results.