placeholder

If everyone has been to school, then asking the question in a way to single out school should be unnecessary. Still waiting for you to engage with this statement from the authors which 100% backs up my assertion: "We began by asking our 18- to 20-year-old respondents (82.4 percent of whom reported attending public schools) whether they had ever been taught in class or heard about from an adult at school each of six concepts—four of which are central to critical race theory." Can you explain why this statement of theirs doesn't back me up? So far, you've given no indication that you can. You simply ignore it. What's truly bizarre about this is that when the authors make a simple matter of fact statement like the one I quoted above, you apparently don't credit it. But when they offer a survey with very little explanation of methodology, you endorse the results. Living in Oppositeworld much?

So why did you write "They are assuming they've been to school, yes correct......lol" It's safe to assume most Americans have been to school. Why direct attention to it in a question? Why is that necessary or advisable to determine where their information came from? As for your 39% comment, another ridiculous point. It's a leading question. They work by the power of suggestion. Only one possible answer out of many is offered in the question. How do we know what percentage would have answered if school wasn't singled out in the question? If the question was open-ended instead? Or even multiple choice. This comment of yours is of a piece with your apparent disbelief that scholarly journals feature surveys. I can come up with at least one reason why a politically biased survey would ask questions of a group that answered negatively. Can you divine what that might be? How does the group that answers that it has not been taught such concepts serve as a reference if the selection was biased to begin with?

??? "whether they had ever been taught in class or heard about from an adult at school each of six concepts"

You defended the use of the questions specifically citing schools on the grounds that the people being asked were students And given that the authors specifically said that the questions addressing the six basic issues all referenced schools and adults connected with them, I have all the evidence I need. Maybe you should tell them that they don't know what their questions included.

Just because someone has been to school, that doesn't mean school is their only, or even, their chief source of information. Teens Spend Average of 4.8 Hours on Social Media Per Day https://news.gallup.com/poll/512576/teens-spend-average-hours-social-media-per-day.aspx And there is family, friends, religious institutions etc. Why single out school? Students have a life outside of school. So, no, it's not about assuming those surveyed have been to school. Instead, this study directs attention to school as opposed to other possible sources. This is not neutral questioning. And why should we care about a survey whose methodology is only slightly revealed. This is not a scholarly journal. And, as I pointed you to you despite this absurd scepticism of yours... "Although I now see you have reverted to whether its peer reviewed or not.....lol. Since when do surveys/studies of these types get peer reviewed? Can you show me some examples? Its not published in a scientific journal.....lol" ...surveys do appear in scholarly journals. At least you've abandoned calling into question the fact that surveys appear in scholarly journals. It's just that the right wing rag you pulled this information from isn't one of them

"Thinking about the school you attended..." that's not part of a leading question? Explicitly directing attention to a possible source does not make a question leading? Your defense of these questions is laughable. And I guess you've never heard of educational or sociological journals that do surveys. Here's a sample. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/png/ajhb/2009/00000033/00000001/art00004;jsessionid=77o49g7b9utid.x-ic-live-03

What don't you understand about the fact that a follow-up question based on a possible falsehood elicited by a leading question is valueless? Whether the follow-up question is leading or not doesn't matter. It's based on unsound evidence. And what makes your use of this study truly bizarre is that there's no evidence that this study was peer reviewed. They authors said they commissioned a study. No further information on who or how. And only a little bit of what. Given their acknowledgement that the questions explicitly mentioned only schools and adults affiliated with schools as a possible source of of information to those questioned it would be astonishing if they were peer reviewed in a reputable journal. City Journal is a highly biased right wing magazine and anyone presuming the bona fides of a "study" sponsored by it, is making a huge and tendentious assumption.

It doesn't matter what they call them. Given that the questions direct attention towards one possible answer but not to others makes them leading questions. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that The City Journal is an a very right wing organization? That they might just possibly have an agenda?

Apart from the words of the authors of the piece. I mean, what do they know?

Of course there is evidence. The fact that they specifically mention only school or adults at the school as the source of information in the 6 basic questions makes them leading question. It's obvious that to get an unbiased response, an open-ended question is best. Next best, multiple choice. Useless: mentioning a potential answer in the question.. And given the extreme ideological bent of this organization - it also publishes articles challenging the scientific basis of global warming - only adds further weight to the case.

Take it up with the people behind the survey. Their words back my point. And you consistently fail to engage with another point that a question that is based on the results of a leading question, will have answers that are useless. Who cares if it's leading or not? It would still be useless.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, the authors of the study specifically said that their 6 basic questions all asked them specifically if their schools or adults at their schools had taught them in class or heard about it from an adult associated with the school. I don't have to see the specific questions given that they have acknowledged including those mentions in their questions. Are you claiming that the people behind this survey are lying or mistaken about the content of their questions? Clearly, your disagreement on this specific point is as much with them as it is with me. More ridiculousness from you.

And so do you. But the thing is, what the author(s) of the piece said was about the question was clear. And it exactly matches how I characterized those questions., And it should be obvious that a question that assumes answers to a leading question are true, is not going to get results any truer than the answers those questions elicited. If, for example a question asks did you see a unicorn in your garden this morning. And 50% of the respondents way yes, then is asking them "what color was that unicorn?" going to get an answer that corresponds to reality?

The authors of the piece very clearly state " We began by asking our 18- to 20-year-old respondents (82.4 percent of whom reported attending public schools) whether they had ever been taught in class or heard about from an adult at school each of six concepts—four of which are central to critical race theory. What is there about this statement that is so difficult for you to understand? And do you understand that it was you who introduced the results of this survey even though you don't know what the exact questions were either? So, to your way of thinking, does credulousness beat scepticism? Anyway, your objection is ridiculous given the very clear characterization by the authors of the basic questions.

A follow-up question based on suspect data is pointless. In the case you cited, the question rests on the assumption that the answers the students gave to the leading question are accurate. But if they're not, then the answers won't be either.

Funny, you don't have a list either. And yet you use their reported results as evidence. Here's how the article characterized the questions: We began by asking our 18- to 20-year-old respondents (82.4 percent of whom reported attending public schools) whether they had ever been taught in class or heard about from an adult at school each of six concepts—four of which are central to critical race theory. That said, the article is quite clear about the nature of the questions: Does this really leave any room for doubt that the questions are not open-ended or multiple choice?

It's called "Civics".

So, a follow-up question based on a leading question is going to get a valid answer? You really want to defend that? Have you considered the possibility that they answered that way because they weren't actually taught those concepts in school in the first place? So they had no actual experience to draw upon? Now an honest survey could be open ended, Or it could be multiple choice. Such as: Where did you learn about the concept of white privilege a)school b)the internet c) friends d)religious institution e)family

Do you understand what a leading question is? I don't need links to disprove a study if it's based on leading questions. If a question suggests an answer, it's a leading question. And given that city journal is an extremely right wing publication, it's obvious what kind of answer they're looking for.

"We began by asking our 18- to 20-year-old respondents (82.4 percent of whom reported attending public schools) whether they had ever been taught in class or heard about from an adult at school each of six concepts—four of which are central to critical race theory." A survey based on an blatantly flawed methodology since the questions suggest an answer. The proper questions would have been an open ended one: Where did you learn that etc...?

Concentrations of ozone-damaging aluminum oxides in Earth's atmosphere could increase by 650% in the coming decades due to a rise in the number of defunct satellites burning up during reentry, a first-of-a-kind study has found. And, as satellite megaconstellations continue to pique the interests of private companies, this could be pretty bad news for our planet's protective shield known as the ozone layer. The authors of the study say rising concentrations of satellite-induced pollutants could cause "potentially significant" ozone depletion and thus thwart the ozone layer's slow and steady recovery. https://www.space.com/megaconstellations-threat-to-ozone-layer-recovery It's not a sure thing that this could be the case, as the final paragraph in the article indicates, but obviously it's worth further investigation.

So many words without any kind of evidence. Truly a remarkable achievement.

Thanks, tiger.

Paris has actually gone a long way towards lowering the number of private cars entering the city. Lots of roads now for pedestrians and bike riders only. Less parking spaces. They also held a referendum on keeping cheap ebike rentals available. That was voted down. Too many ebike riders flouted the law by riding on sidewalks. That's an idea that will probably have to wait until new rules take effect that will further reduce auto traffic in Paris. So, then, riding on sidewalks won't be such a temptation.

In a related topic, timber companies claim that they are replacing the forests they cut down with new forests. But what they are actually doing is replacing forests with a tree plantation. A monocrop. It makes no more sense to call that replacement a forest than it does to call a field of corn a meadow.