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

I don’t see the
error; both Rasmussen and Gallup differed by the same amount
(i.e., a total of 5 points). The ranking mentioned at Wikipedia
might be using other criteria.
Real results: 51%
(Obama), 47% (Romney)
Rasmussen: 48% (Obama, 3
point difference), 49% (Romney, 2
point difference),
5 point combined differenceGallup:
49% (Obama, 2 point difference),
50% (Romney, 3
point difference),
5 point combined difference

Florin Clapa

On 10/30/2013 12:32 PM, biomednews@aol.com wrote:

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 “very
likely the last presidential election of the telephone polling
era,” is particularly interesting.
“2012[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 apparently…not
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” -­ 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 -­ 56 percent -­ 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.
   
   -­ 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