Re: [GRG] 56 Percent of Americans Don’t Want To Live to Age 120!

Re: [GRG] 56 Percent of  Americans Don’t Want To Live to Age 120!According to Wikipedia, we are apparently both in error on the correct details. The closing comment about the 2012 election œvery likely the last presidential election of the telephone polling era, is particularly interesting.
œ2012[edit]
The final 2012 Electoral College projection by Rasmussen Reports showed 237 safe electoral votes for Barack Obama, 206 safe electoral votes for Mitt Romney, and eight toss-up states with a total of 95 electoral votes.[46][47][48]
The final Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll showed Mitt Romney with 49 percent national support and President Obama with 48 percent national support.[49] Obama won the election by close to 4 percentage points.
The final Rasmussen Reports’ pre-election polls showed Obama winning Nevada and New Hampshire, tying Romney in Ohio and Wisconsin, and losing in the other five swing states, including North Carolina. Obama won in the swing states of Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, and Virginia, while Romney took North Carolina.[50]
A Fordham University study by Dr. Costas Panagopoulos compared pre-election polling with the results from election day. The study ranked Rasmussen Reports 24th out of 28 polls in accuracy, one slot above Gallup.[51]
An analysis by Nate Silver on FiveThirtyEight, ranked Rasmussen 20th out of 23 pollsters for accuracy in the 2012 elections with an average error of 4.2 points.[52]
After the election, James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times wrote that “Some conservative media outlets used the Rasmussen polling to prop up a narrative in the final days of the campaign that Romney had momentum and a good chance of winning the White House.”[53]
On November 7, Scott Rasmussen told Slate’s David Weigel, “In general, the projections were pretty good. The two differences I noted were share of white vote falling to 72 percent. That™s what the Obama campaign, to their credit, said all along. We showed it just over 73 percent. Also, youth turnout higher and senior turnout lower than expected. That™s a pretty big deal given the size of the generation gap. I think it showed clearly that the Obama team had a great game plan for identifying their vote and getting it to the polls.”[54]
On November 8, the Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll analysis said “The 2012 election was very likely the last presidential election of the telephone polling era. While the industry did an excellent job of projecting the results, entirely new techniques will need to be developed before 2016. The central issue is that phone polling worked for decades because that was how people communicated. In the 21st century, that is no longer true.”[55]

From: Florin Clapa Reply-To: Gerontology Research Group Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:11:34 -0700To: Gerontology Research Group Subject: Re: [GRG] 56 Percent of  Americans Don’t Want To Live to Age 120!
   
No, ABC News/Wash Post and Pew Research were the most accurate. Rasmussen is tied with Gallup as being the most inaccurate.
 
  
Florin Clapa
 
 
 On 10/30/2013 7:25 AM, biomednews@aol.com wrote:
 
 
Re: [GRG] 56 Percent of  Americans Don’t Want To Live to Age 120! Like I said, his was the closest to being correct. It beat out CNN, Washington Post, New York Times and every other one, for accuracy.
 
 Dave in OC
 
 
 

From: Florin Clapa
 Reply-To: Gerontology Research Group
 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:08:48 -0700
 To: Gerontology Research Group
 Subject: Re: [GRG] 56 Percent of  Americans Don’t Want To Live to Age 120!
 
    
 Actually, Rasmussen’s final survey was wrong. OTOH, near, pin-point precision isn’t necessary for general surveys of public opinion.
  
 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
  
  
 Florin Clapa
  
  
  On 10/29/2013 4:40 PM, biomednews@aol.com wrote:
  
  
  
Re: [GRG] 56 Percent of  Americans Don’t Want To Live to Age 120! For whatever it is worth, the Rasmussen Survey was the closest to being correct on the 2012 US Presidential Election, among the more than 100 surveys that were conducted for the election, according to the final figures that i read.
  
  Cordially,
  
  Dave in OC
  
  
  
 

From: Florin Clapa  
  Reply-To: Gerontology Research Group  
  Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:02:50 -0700
  To: Gerontology Research Group  
  Subject: Re: [GRG] 56 Percent of  Americans Don’t Want To Live to Age 120!
  
     
  Anyone who has a job has a motivation to keep it, but that’s not saying much.
   
   Can you provide evidence that most polls that can have their accuracy verified by post-poll results are grossly inaccurate?
   
   Your inaccurate analysis regarding landlines and mobile phones doesn’t inspire much confidence in your experience.
   
   
  Florin Clapa
   
   
   On 10/29/2013 2:21 PM, Reinhard Kargl wrote:
   
   
   
  
 Of course Pew is selling something! Although the Pewsters my be releasing their poll results for free, the fine people working there are not doing it for free. They’d like to keep sucking money from the endowment and keep their jobs and benefits. (I’d rather see the money spent on real science).
  
   
   
  >From my work as a media consultant: We always studied pre-election polling results very carefully. When we looked at them again after the elections (when everyone else was no longer interested), we realized how laughingly inaccurate they had been before the the real polls (those from the election booths) were counted. This experience has taught me to never, ever trust any poll. Especially not those conducted “randomly” via phone.
   
  
   
   
  This is a bit like discussing whether astrology, palm reading or psychics can predict the future. Those who believe in this sort of stuff will always continue to do so. They never bother to compare predictions and projections against real, verifiable and measurable data.
   
  
   
   
  Reinhard :.
   
  
   
   
  
   
   
  I think we will simply agree to disagree.
   
  
   
   
  
   
   
  On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Florin Clapa    wrote:
   
   
   
  
 
   
  Pew is a non-profit think tank and their surveys are free. And AFAIK, they don’t have axes to grind.
   
   The only significance of the 1991 Telecommunications Privacy Act for poll takers is that it outlaws autodialers. This serves to increase the costs of surveys, but says nothing about accuracy. Perhaps it can be argued that all cellphones are unlisted, but supposedly, wireless providers have access to all active mobile numbers and provide them to poll takers when asked. Poll takers can also randomly dial numbers and ask if the number is a cell or not.
   
   No, the National Do Not Call Registry doesn’t apply to surveys and poll takers that don’t have anything to sell.
   
   Pew acknowledges that nonresponse is a problem (only 9% respond to surveys apparently), but they claim that they can correct for this. I lack the expertise to determine whether Pew can do what it claims, but from my casual observation, presidential polls are fairly accurate within a few percentage points. If polls (whose predictions can be verified) had huge margins of error, I doubt anyone would pay attention to them.
   
   http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0108-national-do-not-call-registry
   
   
  Florin Clapa
   
   
   On 10/29/2013 12:16 PM, Reinhard Kargl wrote:
   
   
   
  
 Of course they would make that claim! Pew is selling a product!
  
   
   
  It would go too far to explain the complex state and federal rules governing phone polls. However, since the 1991 Telecommunications Privacy Act and a multitude of state regulations, the avenues pollsters may still exploit have shrunk dramatically. In addition, there have been significant changes in telecom usage and technology. (For example, unlisted cellphones, Internet telephony, etc.).
   
  
   
   
  According to the FCC, 72% of Americans (!) have now registered at least one number on the National Do-Not-Call list, which makes these numbers off-limits for poll takers. All this means that the pool available for phone polls has shrunk dramatically and is a tiny portion of what it once was.
   
  
   
   
  Even your personal experience should tell you this. Have you ever taken the time to participate in a phone poll in which you get to answer personal questions? Do you know anyone who has? (I sure don’t).
   
  
   
   
  The real test comes when you compare the polling results to verifiable events, and there you’ll clearly see that polls are completely failing in predicting the outcome of, for example, referenda on proposed legislation.
   
  
   
   
  Believe it if you want. I don’t. I believe in science, and polling isn’t one.
   
  
   
   
  Reinhard :.
   
  
   
   
  
   
   
  
   
   
  
   
   
  
   
   
  On Oct 28, 2013, at 9:23 PM, Florin Clapa     wrote:
   
   
   
  
 
   
  a) Yes, nonresponse seems to be a problem, but Pew claims that they can compensate for this.
   b) It’s illegal to use automated dialing devices, but I doubt that it’s illegal to dial random numbers manually.
   c) Supposedly, wireless providers make their list of active numbers available to polling organizations. Even if this wasn’t the case, Pew could (and apparently did) ask participants which kind of phone they’re using.
   d) Except for the active social life issue, the variables you mentioned seemed to have been controlled for.
   
   http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/05/survey_bias_how_can_we_trust_opinion_polls_when_so_few_people_respond_.html
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_Consumer_Protection_Act_of_1991
   http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/06/chapter-5-personal-life-satisfaction/
   
   
  Florin Clapa
   
   
   On 10/28/2013 7:14 PM, Reinhard Kargl wrote:
   
   
   
  
 Those are the standard promotional lines the polling companies put out in their releases. But the reality is different. They cannot do a truly random sample, because:
  
   
   
  a) People who have better things to do with their time than responding to phone polls won’t participate.
   
  b) It is illegal to randomly call numbers, particularly cell phone numbers – except in certain defined circumstances.
   
  c) Opt-in only works with people who agreed to provide their cellphone numbers. (What kind of person would give his or her cellphone number to a polling company? Would you? And how would you react if you got a call from them while you are in traffic? Or doing anything else important?)
   
  d) The timing of calls is another problem. Calls during the day are more likely to reach the unemployed and seniors, and calls during the evenings are unsuccessful with people who have families or an active social life.
   
  
   
   
  No matter what, phone polls are never, ever “representative”. Their history in predicting the outcome of referenda is notoriously poor and probably not much better than your average astrologer or tarot card reader.
   
  
   
   
  Reinhard :.
   
   
  
   
   
  
   
   
  On Oct 28, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Florin Clapa     wrote:
   
   
   
  
  
   
  Reinhard, have you read the Pew survey or its methodology? All ages (over 18) and educational levels were sampled including people using mobile phones. There was also weight adjustment for nonresponse which “ensures that the demographic characteristics of the sample closely approximate the demographic characteristics of the population.”
   
   http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/06/chapter-1-awareness-desirability-implications-and-predictions/
   http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/06/appendix-a-survey-methodology/
   
   
  Florin Clapa
   
   
   On 10/28/2013 10:51 AM, Reinhard Kargl wrote:
   
   
   
   Let’s keep in mind: It’s a Pew study. You might as well read a supermarket tabloid.
  
   
   
  None of the telephone polls can be trusted anymore, because pollsters cannot sample and poll people on their mobile phones. Apart from the old problem that most people would not want to participate in a phone poll (particularly the more educated and busy people), there’s now a new problem: In many areas, 40% of all adults have no landline anymore, but rely exclusively on cellphones. These people tend to be younger, which distorts all phone polls.
   
   
  
   
   
  Reinhard :.
   
  
   
   
  
   
  
   
   
  
   
   
  On Oct 28, 2013, at 9:47 AM, “L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D.”    wrote:
   
   
   
   
  To Members and Friends of the Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group:  
   
           Many  Americans (~60%) say it’s “fundamentally unnatural” to want to live to age 120.  
   So are eye glasses if you’ve never seen a pair and only had them described to you in English
   as “something that you wear over your nose and ears that might help you see better.” — Steve Coles
   
   
   “Live to 120? Thanks, but No Thanks.:
  
  
  
  The Idea of ‘Radical Life Extension’ Gives Many Adults Pause. At least for now.”
  
  
   October 28, 2013; Most people wish to live a long and healthy life. But apparentlyot too long.
   
   
  Wall Street Journal Report
  
  
  

Insights from The  Experts

Read more at WSJ.com/Encore   

           That’s among the major findings in a recent survey by the Pew Research Center that looks at attitudes about aging, medical advances, and “radical life extension” -짯 the possibility that science might slow (or stop) the aging process and “allow humans to remain healthy and productive to the age of 120 or more.”
   
   View  Graphics  
         
   — Roger Roth
   
       When asked whether they would elect to undergo medical treatments that would enable them to live 12 decades, a majority of surveyed adults -짯 56 percent -짯 said “No.” The median ideal lifespan among those surveyed was 90, or about 11 years longer than the current average U.S. life expectancy of 78.7 years.
   
       Why the hesitation about going Methuselah?    Pragmatism is part of the answer. Two-thirds of those surveyed agreed that longer life expectancies would strain the country’s natural resources. Almost 6 in 10 said such treatment would be “fundamentally unnatural.”
   
       Click on the graphic for a closer look at thoughts about life extension.
   
   -짯 Glenn Ruffenach
   
   E-mail: glenn.ruffenach@wsj.com  L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D., Co-Founder
   Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group
   URL: http://www.grg.org  
   E-mail: scoles@grg.org
   E-mail: scoles@ucla.edu
 &nbsp

Advertisements

About Johnny Adams

My full-time commitment is to slow and ultimately reverse age related functional decline to increase healthy years of life. I’ve been active in this area since the 1970s, steadily building skills and accomplishments. I have a good basic understanding of the science of aging, and have many skills that complement those of scientists so they can focus on science to advance our shared mission. Broad experience Top skills: administration, management, information technology (data and programming), communications, writing, marketing, market research and analysis, public speaking, forging ethical win-win outcomes among stakeholders (i.e. high level "selling"). Knowledge in grant writing, fundraising, finance. Like most skilled professionals, I’m best described as a guy who defines an end point, then figures out how to get there. I enjoy the conception, design, execution and successful completion of a grand plan. Executive Director Gerontology Research Group (GRG). Manages Email discussion forum, web site, meetings and oversees supercentenarian (oldest humans, 110+ years) research. CEO / Executive Director Carl I. Bourhenne Medical Research Foundation (Aging Intervention Foundation), an IRS approved 501(c)(3) nonprofit. http://www.AgingIntervention.org Early contributor to Supercentenarian Research Foundation. Co-Founder Geroscience Healthspan Forum. Active contributor to numerous initiatives to increase healthy years of life. Co-authored book on conventional, practical methods available today to slow the processes of aging – nutrition, exercise, behavior modification and motivation, stress reduction, proper supplementation, damage caused by improper programs, risk reduction and others. Fundamental understanding of, and experience in the genomics of longevity (internship analyzing and curating longevity gene papers). Biological and technical includes information technology, software development and computer programming, bioinformatics and protein informatics, online education, training programs, regulatory, clinical trials software, medical devices (CAT scanners and related), hospital electrical equipment testing program. Interpersonal skills – good communication, honest, well liked, works well in teams or alone. Real world experience collaborating in interdisciplinary teams in fast paced organizations. Uses technology to advance our shared mission. Education: MBA 1985 University of Southern California -- Deans List, Albert Quon Community Service Award (for volunteering with the American Longevity Association and helping an elderly lady every other week), George S. May Scholarship, CA State Fellowship. BA psychology, psychobiology emphasis 1983 California State University Fullerton Physiological courses as well as core courses (developmental, abnormal etc). UCLA Psychobiology 1978, one brief but fast moving and fulfilling quarter. Main interest was the electrochemical basis of consciousness. Also seminars at the NeuroPsychiatric Institute. Other: Ongoing conferences, meetings and continuing education. Aging, computer software and information technology. Some molecular biology, biotech, bio and protein informatics, computer aided drug design, clinical medical devices, electronics, HIPAA, fundraising through the Assoc. of Fundraising Professionals. Previous careers include: Marketing Increasing skill set and successes in virtually all phases, with valuable experience in locating people and companies with the greatest need and interest in a product or service, and sitting across the table with decision makers and working out agreements favorable to all. Information Technology: Management, data analysis and programming in commercial and clinical trials systems, and bioinformatics and protein informatics. As IT Director at Newport Beach, CA based technology organization Success Family of Continuing Education Companies, provided online software solutions for insurance and financial professionals in small to Fortune 500 size companies. We were successful with lean team organization (the slower moving competition was unable to create similar software systems). Medical devices: At Omnimedical in Paramount CA developed and managed quality assurance dept. and training depts. for engineers, physicians and technicians. Designed hospital equipment testing program for hospital services division. In my early 20’s I was a musician, and studied psychology and music. Interned with the intention of becoming a music therapist. These experiences helped develop valuable skills used today to advance our shared mission of creating aging solutions.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s