The Furry Sociological Survey: Closing soon, OMG

[FurrySurvey]

Every survey must contain a control group.  If you don't have a control group, the survey winds up saying very little.  There are many reasons for using a control, but in a self-selecting online survey, the most injurious aspect is that the demographics of those who respond to such a survey are not going to be the same--regardless of topic--as the populace at large.

Ah yes, now I get you what you mean. As a matter of fact, I DO have a control. See, my survey is heavily based on David Rust's survey from a few years ago. By comparing my results with his, we shall what trends are consistent between both studies and thus can be assumed to be fairly reliable indicators. For example, at the moment, the ratio of male to female participants in my survey is remarkably similar to Rust's ratio of male to female participants. So it's likely that both our studies are fairly reliable indicators of the ratio of males to females within the furry fandom.
You can read Rust's original survey here: http://www.visi.com/~phantos/furrysoc.html
You'll notice the similarity between survey questions then. As well as noticing what I've changed and added.

[FurrySurvey]

I'd just like to say thanks to everyone here, both for the massive amounts of survey responses I've gotten, as well as for massive amount of discussion you've generated. I read and consider everyone's opinion, and I'll keep in mind what what you've all discussed here when I'm writing the final report.

[Prof B Hunnydew]

DO you think you really are a anthropomorphic spirit trapped in a human body?

Oh bloody hell, if THAT discussion starts here, I'm locking the thread. The last thing I need is people talking about how they are really cute woodland creatures trapped in their hy-ooman bodies.

Murf!   What have I done?   Okay Here a little James Brown coming your way...

Baby help me Please!!!...

OOWW I feel goood
You knew I would now.
I feel nice, you knew I would now...........

PBH

[Gabi]

I'd be surprised if anyone on this forum actually felt that way.

[superluser]

Ah yes, now I get you what you mean. As a matter of fact, I DO have a control. See, my survey is heavily based on David Rust's survey from a few years ago. By comparing my results with his, we shall what trends are consistent between both studies and thus can be assumed to be fairly reliable indicators.

Er...there are still problems with using a different study for a control.  You may think that your methodologies are identical, but the control is the proper way to verify that.

I'd be surprised if anyone on this forum actually felt that way.

What way?  Good?  Technically, I guess I feel well, but I do feel it.

[Tapewolf]

I'd be surprised if anyone on this forum actually felt that way.

What way?

That thing Darkmoon was threatening to lock the thread over, I think.

[Gabi]

Tapewolf wins. That's what I meant.

[EvilIguana966]

By being a fan of DMFA you're already removed from the "non-furry" denomination.  ^_-

DMFA is the gateway drug to furry.

So true.  I'm still soooo not a furry though.

[R.A.M.]

By being a fan of DMFA you're already removed from the "non-furry" denomination.  ^_-

DMFA is the gateway drug to furry.

So true.  I'm still soooo not a furry though.

Clearly a Scaly...

[FurrySurvey]

Ah yes, now I get you what you mean. As a matter of fact, I DO have a control. See, my survey is heavily based on David Rust's survey from a few years ago. By comparing my results with his, we shall what trends are consistent between both studies and thus can be assumed to be fairly reliable indicators.

Er...there are still problems with using a different study for a control.  You may think that your methodologies are identical, but the control is the proper way to verify that.

Oh no, our methodologies aren't identical at all! Rust surveyed the majority of his participants at conventions, while I'm using an online survey for furries on forums. It's the questions we're asking that are (for the most part) identical.

Anyway, a survey study doesn't actually need a control group. Only experiments need control groups. For example, say I was doing a study on a drug that would enhance peoples mental abilities. I would have a group of people who were given the actual drug (experiment group) and a group who recieved a placebo (control group). Both groups would be given an IQ test before and after being given the drug. Then you could see the difference both before and after participants were given drugs, as well as seeing if the placebo had any effect. If the control group IQ scores increased by an average of 10%, while the experimental groups average IQ scores increased to around 30%, you can assume that the drug account for only 20% of the experimental groups increased IQ levels, with the other 10% being due to the placebo effect.

The only to do a control group in this survey would be to have the same survey given out to non-furs...but I'm totally not going to do that. It's just logistically impossible to survey the non-furry side of the internet with any accuracy.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

The only to do a control group in this survey would be to have the same survey given out to non-furs...but I'm totally not going to do that. It's just logistically impossible to survey the non-furry side of the internet with any accuracy.

... it's also logistically impossible to survey the furry side with any accuracy, online, anyway.

I dispute your comment about not -needing- a control group, though I despair of any way of -providing- one... If you don't have a control, all you have is a bunch of numbers. What are you comparing them to? How do you prove your numbers for the "average non-furry" when comparing to the "average furry" without asking them both all the same questions?


The short answer is, you can't. So all you get from this is a bunch of meaningless numbers. Statistics is so neat....

[FurrySurvey]

If you don't have a control, all you have is a bunch of numbers. What are you comparing them to?

David Rust's original survey, that's what! 

Keep in mind that by nature, no statistical survey is 100% accurate. To accomplish that feat would require surveying every single furry in the world! What you have instead is a sample of that larger population. And the larger the sample, the greater the probability that your data will reflect the poplation at large.

[Amber Williams]

Circular logic go!

I admit I havent and likely won't take the survey.  It just doesn't interest me and I don't feel like the target demographic as odd as that sounds.  Which is probably one of the problems in doing a survey like this, since it relies on the willingness and honesty of varying people to fulfill it.  And since most people can't even agree on who or what a furry is, I doubt there will ever be an accurate survey done.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

If you don't have a control, all you have is a bunch of numbers. What are you comparing them to?

David Rust's original survey, that's what! 

.. which, since he ran it at a number of cons, is arguably biased towards furries, or at the very least the sort of open-minded people who don't hate people simply because they're furries...

As Amber says - circular logic, go. Arguing that you don't need a control group for a furry survey because you can use an earlier furry survey is... less than complete.

[Prof B Hunnydew]

Surveys and polls all some amount of error, the trick is to balance data against your variables and try to keep the number of variables to minimum.  And to poll as many as possible. 

Now, FurrySurvey can use the old survey to bounce his survey off of, but maybe he should try going to a few furry cons and take a polls there, too.  And keep the data from both the internet and the con data separate from each other. 

The survey control group would only be good for people who think of themselves as furries, which was the point of the original survey... Do you think the Gallup Polls gets non- voluntaries in their polls.?

PBH

[Tapewolf]

I don't know enough about his course to know precisely what he's trying to achieve, but in the software engineering group project I did in '99, the bulk of the marking came from the autopsy of the project, rather than the project itself.

To whit, he might score on this for suggesting ways to arrange a control group for situations like this.

[Alondro]

As a scientist who previously used to database clinical journals which relied heavily on statistical surveys, I can see that this survey will have very limited application, but can be credible as long as it doesn't try to over-reach its significance.  This survey will only demonstrate trends among people who already strongly associate themselves with furry.  It can be used validly for that purpose, but it is useless to apply this data to the general population, or to try and interpolate any trends among the fandom as a whole, since the ratios are quite certain to be highly skewed in the convention population vs the general population.

Convention groups are never used by valid research for anything other than to determine facts about that specific population. 

Now, one can use general population data to determine statistical differences between the groups, such as ratios of homosexuality and bisexuality vs the gender identity ratios general public, and thus reach conclusions on how the groups differ, but again it can't reflect on the furry fandom as a whole because in conventions you cannot be sure you are attaining a truly representative sample due to the non-randomness of convention population selection and must be confined only as a subset as "people who attend furry conventions".

[Prof B Hunnydew]

True

But the orginal survey was of the convention population, so maybe part of his online survey should have a question about Cons.. It is an important relating piece of data when comparing the old and new surveys.   And yes the survey is limit only to Furries that think of themselves as furries.  But he can see if how this  subgroup is growing and/or the trends in the fandum are going...Or Is it too limited for what.?  Maybe in a few more years, he can run another survey, and compare it to this one.

PBH

Polls and survey have to start somewhere and they always build on that was done before.

[FurrySurvey]

As a scientist who previously used to database clinical journals which relied heavily on statistical surveys, I can see that this survey will have very limited application, but can be credible as long as it doesn't try to over-reach its significance.  This survey will only demonstrate trends among people who already strongly associate themselves with furry.  It can be used validly for that purpose, but it is useless to apply this data to the general population, or to try and interpolate any trends among the fandom as a whole, since the ratios are quite certain to be highly skewed in the convention population vs the general population.

Convention groups are never used by valid research for anything other than to determine facts about that specific population. 

Now, one can use general population data to determine statistical differences between the groups, such as ratios of homosexuality and bisexuality vs the gender identity ratios general public, and thus reach conclusions on how the groups differ, but again it can't reflect on the furry fandom as a whole because in conventions you cannot be sure you are attaining a truly representative sample due to the non-randomness of convention population selection and must be confined only as a subset as "people who attend furry conventions".

Yes, exactly. Rust's original survey can only be generalised to convention going furries (although 35 out of his 360 participants did the survey online) while my survey can only be generalised to furries who attend forums and message boards.

[FurrySurvey]

If you don't have a control, all you have is a bunch of numbers. What are you comparing them to?

David Rust's original survey, that's what! 

.. which, since he ran it at a number of cons, is arguably biased towards furries, or at the very least the sort of open-minded people who don't hate people simply because they're furries...

Well...it's 100% biased toward furries. After all, it's a furry survey. You know....for furries. This is a furry survey. Not a furrys versus non-furries survey.  Just furries. Only furries. Made by furries. For furries. Furries.

[FurrySurvey]

Surveys and polls all some amount of error, the trick is to balance data against your variables and try to keep the number of variables to minimum.  And to poll as many as possible. 

Now, FurrySurvey can use the old survey to bounce his survey off of, but maybe he should try going to a few furry cons and take a polls there, too.  And keep the data from both the internet and the con data separate from each other. 

The survey control group would only be good for people who think of themselves as furries, which was the point of the original survey... Do you think the Gallup Polls gets non- voluntaries in their polls.?

PBH

I'd love to take this survey to cons! But unfortunately I'm a Australian furry. And although we have three major gathering here, we don't really have any cons per se. But I'd be great if (in many years time when I have the money to go overseas) I could take a new furry survey (and the lessons I've learned from doing this one) and study furries at conventions like Anthrocon and Further Confusion. *dreams*

[FurrySurvey]

I don't know enough about his course to know precisely what he's trying to achieve, but in the software engineering group project I did in '99, the bulk of the marking came from the autopsy of the project, rather than the project itself.

To whit, he might score on this for suggesting ways to arrange a control group for situations like this.

This isn't actually for any university course or anything. I'm just using my knowledge from having studied psychology and applying it to this project.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

FurrySurvey, multiple postings are frowned upon, here. Just so you know. You can quite easily add multiple quotes to a single message, and you can also easily edit your message with the "modify" icon at the top of each...


Just a gentle reminder...

[Alan Garou]

By being a fan of DMFA you're already removed from the "non-furry" denomination.  ^_-

DMFA is the gateway drug to furry.

So true.  I'm still soooo not a furry though.

Clearly a Scaly...

[Gabi]

What about featheries?

[Stygian]

While man can still his body keep
Wine or love drug him to sleep,
Waking he thanks the Lord that he
Has body and its stupidity,
But body gone he sleeps no more,
And till his intellect grows sure
That all's arranged in one clear view,
Pursues the thoughts that I pursue,
Then stands in judgment on his soul,
And, all work done, dismisses all
Out of intellect and sight
And sinks at last into the night...

   The Man and The Echo, by William Butler Yeats

We're all trapped, with flaws and imperfections fettering us. The strive to bend or break these, even in mind, has stagnated over time, if you ask me.
   Now, the increasing possibilities revealed and made available to us through the gathered knowledge of our modern society, lets those few of us not too busy or too shy seek out new manners of expression, through thought mostly, not always action.
   As is with so much else though, these experiences are confined by the mind as much as interpreted by it, and these limitations imply that there are certain boundaries and borders that we cannot cross using normal means of communication. Quite frankly, we can only give a rudimentary idea of what we really think using the little language and understanding we have at our disposal. And even that may be tainted by petty emotions, tendencies and stress.
   And just as is with so many other concepts that we form in our mind, such as morals, laws, feelings and such, we have so many definitions and ideas with so few means to communicate them, and no real firm points of reference. It's just ideas. And an idea is so much.

   Thus the question boils down to; do you consider yourself a furry, in the colloquial sense of the word as accepted by the general community. The rest is specifics.

   Well, that's a very rough interpretation of my view, at least...

[Gabi]

But is there a colloquial sense of the word that is accepted by the whole community?

[Prof B Hunnydew]

But is there a colloquial sense of the word that is accepted by the whole community?

Try this here -  But the definition is a little too broad   link--- Furry on WIKI

Edit: the term Furry is Slang, so that is why there is no firm definition

........ PBH

[Stygian]

Maybe I should have said generally accepted by the community instead... See what I'm talking about here?

[GreenReaper]

Most people would agree that anthropomorphic animals are in there somewhere. After that, it gets a bit divisive. 

The Wikipedia definition is actually trying to describe all possible definitions, which is one reason why it may have seemed broad. You may not agree with all the possible definitions proposed.