[Schneed10]

Wow, this post was long. Thanks for taking the time to write it. I'm going to break it up to address a few things.

Originally Posted by itvnetop

I've actually read your posts re: statistics in other threads, Schneed. And I've actually taken three statistics classes in two different departments (in undergraduate and graduate levels). I'm going to guess (correct me if I'm wrong) that you've taken statistics in some type of economics or finance background. My two statistics classes were in a grad-level education psychology and undergrad sociological research.

I can almost tell what your next argument will be- "sociology and education are bunch of liberal hullabaloo and aren't legitimate resources for statistics." Now I ask you- who are you to say which statistics are more legitimate than another? What I did learn in my statistics classes (among concepts like random sampling, standard deviation, normal distribution, central limit theorem and f-tests) is that polls are reflections of numbers set to a sample. There aren't true measures of success when dealing in context. What I learned from statistics research, textbooks and instruction is that you're suppose to use stats (in the form of polls and hard numbers) as part of a larger schema.

I'm glad to hear we're speaking the same language. Stats are stats, it doesn't matter which discipline you're applying it to. Mine was first a business statistics course, then I delved deeper when I completed my minor in math and took straight up statistics. In my MBA program we hit it again during the risk management courses.

Polls are indeed set to a sample. But you'll recall from your classes that if you select your sample in a sufficiently random fashion, and drive your n high enough, your result will approximate within a certain level of confidence or margin of error, the true sentiment of the overall population. Speaking just on math terms alone, that'd have to be one GIGANTIC margin of error for a 90%-10% result to have a chance at swinging around the other way.

Originally Posted by itvnetop

Fine, I can't convince you to read anything re: NA history- continue as you will. I'll play your game of just dealing with polls and numbers, then. Let's take a hypothetical situation of GPA scores. Hypothetically speaking, is the student with the 4.0 GPA is smarter than the kid with a 3.7? Not necessarily... the student with the 4.0 just happened to get better grades. GPA doesn't account for honors classes, selected course load, extra-curricular activities, etc. If you take a line graph of SATs scores vs. college success, do the kids who scored higher on the tests plot higher on the y-axis? What I learned in my Educational and Evaluation class is that higher test scores don't equal success (and these results were from the polls and math you deem to tell the entire story). Math doesn't tell the entire story, but if math classes are the only ones you've ever bothered to take I can see why you'd have such a myopic view of things.

I would actually beg to differ, math can fully explain a correlation between college GPA and the student. SAT scores alone could not adequately do so, nor could high school GPA. There would be multiple variables driving success. I would say study time per week would be the largest factor, IQ would be second, degree of difficulty of courses chosen, degree of difficulty of teachers chosen, hours of sleep per night, and a few others. Granted, there will be some human elements that cannot be easily quantified. For example, those who are good under pressure and stress will tend to perform better on those timed final exams. But a strong enough correlation could easily be established using the quantifiable factors alone.

Originally Posted by itvnetop

So how exactly does this pertain to what we're talking about? You say this poll reflects an overwhelming majority of NA who aren't offended by the term. There's a reason people tend to change their opinion about this very issue once they've done some actual research into it (yes, that includes reading books). Did you know several Redskins players also went from "who cares" to "now I understand" after a certain time? I don't have time to break down everything I've read, but since you're so stuck on math and hard numbers to tell the whole story, this may resonate somewhat:

In my research (years ago in high school and undergrad), I analyzed polls (yes hard numbers) that showed NAs have highly disproportionate levels of low self-esteem compared to other social groups. Statistics (which is what you're looking for) show that over half the NA population on reservations are unemployed. NAs are three times more likely to become alcoholics than other ethnic groups. These factors are direct causation of low self-worth. If a person has a low sense of self, chances are they're not going to be offended by someone hurling a personal insult against them. Why would he/she be offended by a negative connotation against the general group? Answer? He/she won't be... if they've got no sense of self in the first place, they don't find fault with the word to describe the group population. *Of course, this is just what I've come to learn- it's not something I pulled out of thin air... go ahead and dispute it with your innate logic that trumps years and years and specialized research and writing.

I would agree with the concept that a low sense of self-worth could drive alcoholism, and even antipathy towards the issue. But I haven't seen you present anything establishing a causal relationship between the ethnicity that is Native American, or historical attitude towards Native Americans, and low self worth. Once again, covariances enter the equation. I'd venture a guess that the biggest driver of low self-worth is poverty. We see it across all ethnicities. Black people don't have higher rates of unemployment and lower SAT scores than whites because they're dumber than whites, they have them because they are, as a population, poorer. And thereby disadvantaged. There are many, many potential causes for low self worth.

Originally Posted by itvnetop

In polls where I've seen NA support for the term "redskins" and other sports mascots, college-educated NA are actually the total opposite. Those in college are overwhelmingly against these names. Yet look at these hard numbers: Poll conducted by National Center for Educational Statistics

Gee, if NAs make up less than 1% of the country's college enrollment I'd go out on a limb and say there aren't very many NAs that make it off the res. The ones that do are most certainly against it, but the numbers are so miniscule, the dissent pales in comparison to the "overwhelming" non-offended left on the reservations.

But I'm sure anything I say (including numbers, polls, official dictionary definitions, etc) are going to be summarily dismissed by what you know and how you think. Your assertion is that the majority of NAs polled find no offense to the term "redskins", thus the moniker is acceptable. My point of contention is that we don't need to wait for a NA poll conducted by an Ivy league to make the change.

Here's the thing that bothers me. Why is an "educated" man's opinion more valid than a non-educated man's opinion? Why is a college graduate's opinion more relevant? To suggest so reeks of intellectual arrogance (and I recognize the irony of me saying so).

The guy who dropped out in 7th grade should get just as much say as the guy who graduated college. I can't accept any argument leaning on a specific sub-population for the sake of making a point.