Survey- Public attitudes to transgender prisoners

[highame]

This from FPFW site.

This MSc student is looking at public attitudes to transgender prisoners. It takes about 10 minutes to complete and could be an important measure of public opinion. Please take a moment to fill in.
t.co/LXpRTvw8Ji?amp=1study and please share.

I think this is bona fide. It's on FPFW site so nothing to suggest otherwise

@Novelusername

Even the questions relating to religion didn't make much sense, asking how often you pray, but not to which 'god'. How would they be able to tell whether their responses were coming from a Hindu, Jew, Muslim or Christian, for example? If Christian, what type? There's a huge difference between different denominations, so praying regularly needn't tell you anything else about the nature of that person's beliefs.

They will have been to measure religiousity. No specific religion required. Because they share characteristics.

I can't see it on the site (as per the OP ) however I'm surprised that FPFW promoted it. What were they thinking?

I don't think they were promoting it as such. More raising awareness.

'They will have been to measure religiousity. No specific religion required. Because they share characteristics.'

I wish I'd seen the survey!

Would love to see how they defined religious,
How they defined prayer,
Whether they made clear if it was about organised religion or personal beliefs

Etc etc.

From what I've read it sounds like a mess!

I am baffled as to why fpfw posted that.

Fake Twitter?
Hacked?

Bizarre.

Is there anything to show that FPFW ever mentioned this at all?

Yes the tweet is still there.

I'm not a member of Twitter there's a white tick so think it's them? No idea.

Really very weird and random.

There was an AIBU thread earlier with a direct link to the survey earlier today

It's very odd.

Does anyone know anyone there to ask?

Had another look does seem to be their Twitter and posts since so not been hacked.

I think they could have said why they were sharing it a bit more.

@NiceGerbil

Had another look does seem to be their Twitter and posts since so not been hacked.

I think they could have said why they were sharing it a bit more.

Maybe to widen awareness of how poor it is.

Question for those who did the survey. What were all of the references in this thread to locomotives about?

Thing is all they said is it could be an important measure of public opinion.

I sounds very poorly written and leading.
I've not got an MSc but is work for that likely to be picked up by the press etc?

If they're asking just whoever to fill it in on Twitter then there could be massive bias in who answers. And in general SM is only used by a subset of the population so it's a risk all round to ask for people on Twitter to contribute.

And then it got taken down all of a sudden.. why? If it's important then that seems strange.

It's all v weird to me.

@DdraigGoch

Question for those who did the survey. What were all of the references in this thread to locomotives about?

The question was something like...

Is it right for a woman to work on a locomotive and a man to darn socks? I think

@NiceGerbil

'They will have been to measure religiousity. No specific religion required. Because they share characteristics.'

I wish I'd seen the survey!

Would love to see how they defined religious,
How they defined prayer,
Whether they made clear if it was about organised religion or personal beliefs

Etc etc.

From what I've read it sounds like a mess!

It's not really about defining it. It's about identifying a trait, in this case I'd guess religiousity and conservatism, and finding questions which score for or against. You ask loads of questions in case one (for example darning socks or driving trains) doesn't hit it will still trend towards across all the questions.

Sometimes you even ask counterintuitive questions which seem like nonsense but they score the right way. For example on the Lie Test (to see if you are a liar) one question is do you routinely lie to people you love? You'd think that one trends to you being a liar if you say 'yes' but it's the opposite. And some things are very highly correlated so you can ask seemingly unrelated questions and get results.

None of the questions has to definitively identify you one way or the other, just trend towards in a population. You discard outliers anyway.

Psychology tests are often made to make you think one thing, and test something entirely different. So you don't scam the test. The Psychology Department at Goldsmiths might be right-on but it was a very very highly rated department and their rigour was notable. I doubt very much the experiment was a total load of bollocks. But I might be wrong.

And again, the chances are that the questions about religion were part of a bought set which the person submitting this would have had no hand in writing. I've used similar. It will have been tested extensively for validity. Looks like it's fairly old and American but it will have been tested at some point.

The test writers will define what they mean. You use the one that fits best. For example journals.lww.com/jnr-twna/fulltext/2017/12000/psychometric_testing_of_a_religious_belief_scale.4.aspx

Then the person will add what they are testing against. Which we don't know, because I bet it's not what they said they were testing. I mean it could be reading comprehension when the subject is contentious. That would have been an excellent experiment!

That's really interesting thank you!

I didn't see the survey though so no idea apart from what other posters said and it sounds pretty random.

It was about transgender people in prison, which surely has plenty of other ways to measure your leanings liberal etc.

Anyway it's not my thing! Would have loved to have seen it.

They should look random otherwise people clock you!

So I've seen experiments where they were testing the effect of observers on men's and women's tolerance of pain. What the subjects experienced was being asked to hold their hand in a bucket of very cold water for as long as possible. They didn't know that the sex of them and the person administering the test was the point. Whether they were offered money, whether the script made a difference. All things they didn't know they were being tested on.

Science is cool. Subjects working out what the experiment was testing is often very much contrary to the aims of the test.

I agree it sounds fascinating!

Have you seen the survey though? It mean it may have been super clever or it may have been rubbish, I don't think we know do we?

I took the survey. And as a former manipulator of humans it could be clever, it could be awful. There's no way to know until it's published.

Oh cool! I didn't realise you'd seen it.

As something you know a lot about. Seems some posters were confused by the religion questions as they didn't seem to fit well to a non USA context. You didn't get that vibe?

@NiceGerbil

Oh cool! I didn't realise you'd seen it.

As something you know a lot about. Seems some posters were confused by the religion questions as they didn't seem to fit well to a non USA context. You didn't get that vibe?

I did the survey and as a non-religious person it did feel oddly Americanised. It was a weird survey and some of the questions were random. I understand what people are saying about using these types of questions to prevent people scamming but these felt bizarrely weird if that makes sense. I only did the survey because I saw FPFW post it on Twitter.

If a test of religiosity was validated in one cultural context (America) then I assume it does not automatically follow that it woukd be valid in another culture (UK) especially if the language used is different from that used in the UK.

@NiceGerbil

Had another look does seem to be their Twitter and posts since so not been hacked.

I think they could have said why they were sharing it a bit more.

I assumed they were concerned that this individual would get a lot of TWAW and should be in a women's prison responses from people that were nice and liberal, that would mean the conclusion would be that nice liberal people think TW should be in women's prisons.

By signposting the survey they ensured there would also be a lot of nice liberal people saying TW should absolutely not be in women's prisons.

The question was something like...

Is it right for a woman to work on a locomotive and a man to darn socks? I think
Ironically, where I went yesterday, there was indeed a woman working as a fireman* on a steam locomotive.

*Even when the job is filled by a woman, the title remains "fireman". It's a physically-demanding and dirty job and any woman I've known who's done it takes pride in having worked hard for the title and anyone who dares call her "fireperson" or "firewoman" usually gets threatened with the shovel. "Firefighter" would be very misleading in this role - you're supposed to stoke the fire, not put it out!

I'm a man, and in my environmentalist fervour have certainly considered learning how to repair socks. It's an uncommon skill in these throwaway days, in fact the only place in popular culture I've seen it was in an episode of Porridge where Leonard Arthur Godber (a heterosexual male prisoner) mends a pair of Fletcher's socks for him.

Talking of clothing repair skills, I can also sew (not very well admittedly) so when bits of clothing come unstitched I can repair them. Who says that sewing needs to be a female-only skill? Watching Downton Abbey, trained valets are expected to make adjustments and minor repairs to clothing too.

Very steam punk.