# The logic of polls



## Guest (Sep 4, 2012)

There've been a lot of polls 'round here lately, and I haven't looked into every one of them, so if my point here has already been covered, I apologize.

It's been alluded to, several times. I wanted to make it explicit:

1. Polls assume that everyone involved, poll makers and participants alike, is equally competent.

And so we have the spectacle of people who have not listened to very much twentieth century music making and participating in polls about it. We have the twin absurdities of people who don't particularly like it passing judgment on who its major players are and the increasing inclusion of nineteenth century composers whose dates happen to cross the 1900 line (even if their music does not--_especially_ if their music does not, I should say).

2. People assume that their opinions are more valuable than anyone else's.

And so we have the spectacle of people who have not listened to very much twentieth century music making and participating in polls about it. We have the twin absurdities of people who don't particularly like it passing judgment on who its major players are and the increasing inclusion of nineteenth century composers whose dates happen to cross the 1900 line (even if their music does not--_especially_ if their music does not, I should say).

Hmmmm.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

People just want to have fun.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

some guy said:


> And so we have the spectacle of people who have not listened to very much twentieth century music making and participating in polls about it. .


So? 
..........


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

Can their logic be assessed before we know what their aim is? Perhaps some poll-makers should say why they make them and then we can see if it's flawed.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

A poll on any subject allows people who may not have the confidence or the in-depth knowledge to elaborate on their choices to at least opt for them - that in itself is a contribution of sorts even if they feel they have nothing more to say. If they want to leave it at that then fine - what I don't like to see (and I'm not saying it happens here especially) is anyone being belittled because they won't or can't back up their vote for fear of being 'taken to pieces' by self-appointed arbiters of taste.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

some guy said:


> 1. Polls assume that everyone involved, poll makers and participants alike, is equally competent.


Not really, polls assume a minimum competency, not an equal ability, they permit the participation of everyone, or at least everyone who is invited. That is why elections aren't limited to political scientists; only the too young, too, foreign, too mad or too criminal etc are banned. Unfortunately none of those can be excluded here.



some guy said:


> 2. People assume that their opinions are more valuable than anyone else's.


In matters of taste aren't personal opinions most valuable? A poll of "most important composers" rather than "best" may be less about taste perhaps, but it is still a judgment involving more aesthetics than an "important scientist" poll.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I only participate in polls where I have the knowledge.
On 20thc / Brit composers - I hardly know anything - so did not take part.
I know shapespeare's work well enough and of course good ol wolfie - know little about Michelangelo but what I have seen in art books looks quite stunning so I had an opinion there - chose wolfie of course - but I would choose him first in any poll.
I'm fed up with silly polls though. In fact I seem to be running out of steam on this board. It's a shame because I wanted to shout out about M sy 24 2nd mvt - what a treasure it is. Oh well.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Polls are just like classical music; that is, polls are art. If the poll maker (the artist) decides to have a poll on a particular topic and its contents, then it becomes a poll. Poll contributers may choose to enjoy participating or leave it alone or criticise it (or some combination of these), just like we do with classical music and its composers. There is no right or wrong about a poll. I am going to start one soon, I am thinking about comparing *Claudio Monteverdi* (1567-1643) with *Merzbow* (Japanese noise musician, born 1979), who do you prefer? Isn't this the overall approach to poll-making. We have numerous empirical evidence right here at TC that this is indeed the case.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

stomanek said:


> I only participate in polls where I have the knowledge.
> On 20thc / Brit composers - I hardly know anything - so did not take part.
> I know shapespeare's work well enough and of course good ol wolfie - know little about Michelangelo but what I have seen in art books looks quite stunning so I had an opinion there - chose wolfie of course - but I would choose him first in any poll.
> I'm fed up with silly polls though. In fact I seem to be running out of steam on this board. It's a shame because I wanted to shout out about M sy 24 2nd mvt - what a treasure it is. Oh well.


The Currently Listening thread is perfect for comments like these.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

polls are cool


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> There is no right or wrong about a poll.


But some polls generate more heat than light. This is sometimes due to a lack of care and clarity in setting up the poll in the first place.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I thinks the polls are just good fun. But if the results were going to be presented to the Royal Academy of Music or some such august organization, I would be more chary of contributing.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> But some polls generate more heat than light. This is sometimes due to a lack of care and clarity in setting up the poll in the first place.


Yes, I think you're right. Professional pollsters know well how to craft questions to bias the results. I don't think anyone here does that, but certainly some polls yield uncertain results while others may stir up controversy. While I think polls in general can be fun (and I suspect the overwhelming majority here participate for that reason), the recent proliferation of polls has yielded some that just seem less interesting to me. Perhaps the recent deluge will lessen members' desire to participate - or maybe not. We'll see.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I like polls since they give me an idea of people other than myself actually think. Occasionally I pick a choice, and then when I see everyone else's choices, I'm dismayed that I went the opposite direction.  Conversely, sometimes I find myself with the "bunch." But it's neat to see how I'm different, or the same, from my peers.

However, polls shouldn't be used to peer pressure people into liking/disliking certain things, just because everyone else is saying otherwise.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

People like to think they are worth something. Having an opinion implies this within the context it is worth. By giving an opinion it makes someone feel clever. Polls are ways of allowing people to express opinions. Opinions make people feel more worthwhile than giving knowledge, because knowledge is mostly passed on (someone else told you it first) whereas you feel an opinion belongs to you.

Bring on the polls


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> There've been a lot of polls 'round here lately, and I haven't looked into every one of them, so if my point here has already been covered, I apologize.
> 
> It's been alluded to, several times. I wanted to make it explicit:
> 
> ...


You seem to be taking for granted that people who actually like 20th century "2-year-old on pots & pans noise" can even be considered competent evaluators of musical talent.
_
We should challenge that assumption_.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Couchie said:


> You seem to be taking for granted that people who actually like 20th century "2-year-old on pots & pans noise" are more competent evaluators of musical talent.
> _
> We should challenge that assumption_.


Worst post ever? Wow.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> Worst post ever? Wow.


This is a bit insulting. I'm sure I've made worse! :tiphat:


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

But it's about 20th Century. Anything about 20th Century is blasphemy.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> ...
> ...We have the twin absurdities of people who don't particularly like it passing judgment on who its major players are and the increasing inclusion of nineteenth century composers whose dates happen to cross the 1900 line (even if their music does not--_especially_ if their music does not, I should say).....


Well speaking for myself, I made this poll recently (but put in the title discussion, which I'm more interested in than poll results).
http://www.talkclassical.com/21139-big-three-modernists-poll.html

I also made the poll choices as wide varying as possible. Eg. I made an option for people who like all three composers I put as the topic of the thread/poll.

You where critical of my choice of the word 'Modernism,' which is fine, but let's face it, you can tell I tried hard:

A. Not to make the poll a predetermined outcome (eg. inviting people to question my choice of composers if they want to)
B. For the poll to be about a comparison worth making
C. To make the poll based on what I know of classical music in the period concerned, and I made my rationale as clear as I could in my OP for choosing those three composers

However at the end of the day, these polls are used to generate discussion. & I can't please everybody, I can't be like a cardboard cut out who is there to kind of be everything and nothing. I've got opinions, I make decisions in doing a thread/poll, the buck stops with me. People can question it, I often question the rationale behind polls. But I try not to question the knowledge or lack of knowledge of the person making the poll. Its damned hard to do that in real life, and even harder online, and I don't even think its worth bothering about anyways.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Non-polls are just polls through other means.

Think about it.


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

some guy said:


> 2. People assume that their opinions are more valuable than anyone else's.


Well why not? And when someone does do that, just remember this quote by some famous person or another "Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Could that have been Nietsche who said: "There are no facts--only interpretations".
Also, most of these polls are a nonsense with hidden agendas particularly from certain individuals, but they can be looked upon as a laugh.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

Regardless of their accuracy, at least they generate some new discussion.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

some guy said:


> There've been a lot of polls 'round here lately, and I haven't looked into every one of them, so if my point here has already been covered, I apologize.
> 
> It's been alluded to, several times. I wanted to make it explicit:
> 
> ...


And the spate of polls in recent times have shown us that perhaps they reveal more about the OP than the ones who answer those...

For me, answers aren't necessarily reduced to a bunch of segregated multiple choice answers.

For me, "What does music mean to me?" doesn't consolidate well into a poll format.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> There've been a lot of polls 'round here lately, and I haven't looked into every one of them, so if my point here has already been covered, I apologize.
> 
> It's been alluded to, several times. I wanted to make it explicit:
> 
> ...


The truth is that I don't count my opinion for much. I would rate the opinion of pretty much everyone here as being more knowledgeable and valuable than my own. So this is really unfair to me.

If or when I rate some people's opinions more highly, I can make the poll "public" and notice how different specific people respond. So that is also unfair to me.

And none of my polls have been designed to show that modern music is unpopular, so that is also really unfair to me.

I understand that polls and the projects that involve voting and so on might be useless or even counterproductive for people who know so much more about music than I do, but as long as my own knowledge remains so limited I am really glad that I have the opportunity to benefit from them.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Science, *you know a lot*! :lol:

But I quite agree with the main point you make, which is that posting a poll does not mean that the original poster discounts other people's opinions as less valuable than his/her own, or assumes that he knows as much as the cognoscenti.

I would add that I see nothing wrong with getting people like me involved in expressing their opinion - people like me who really don't know much, and haven't listened to much. I generally wouldn't vote on a poll that I knew nothing about, but if it's one that asks for an opinion on something I know *a little* about, then I might vote, and add a comment afterwards.

*And why not*? We are all _*equally welcome*_ on Talk Classical whether we know a great deal, or whether we don't know much, but we like classical music - or that's what I've always understood, from Krummhorn's posts and those of the other mods, and Mr Magle. :tiphat:

The other thing is, that in Classical Music, no matter *how much* anyone knows, there is always* more* to be learned.

*You* realise that, Science, and so do all thinking individuals.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> And the spate of polls in recent times have shown us that perhaps they reveal more about the OP than the ones who answer those...
> 
> For me, answers aren't necessarily reduced to a bunch of segregated multiple choice answers.
> 
> For me, "What does music mean to me?" doesn't consolidate well into a poll format.


Polls aren't necessarily posted just so people can vote on limited options. When I post a poll, it's *to get discussion going* by suggesting opinions that people may then disagree with, or agree with but amplify. I also always include an 'other' option which invites disagreement and diversification.

And I'm sure many other posters of polls do too.

There is also the choice of not voting on a poll, but just answering the question anyway.
Or else just leaving the thread alone, if anybody hates them *that *much!

If the question asked is a useful or interesting one, it is as valid to post a thread with a poll as to post a thread without a poll. It is the question that 'reveals something about the OP' - not the fact that it is a poll.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Polls are not serious business, but some folks will never accept that they're just for playing around.


----------



## Rhombic (Oct 28, 2013)

Yes/no polls should always include the "Neutral or unsure." option.


----------

