|
|
Post by mank on Jan 30, 2012 19:41:32 GMT 3
Ok, DW, now I believe I have communicated ( here) as well as I can do on Jukwaa about the problem I identified in your claim of confirmation of ethnic differences in trusting outsiders. Since you have been forceful in countering my suggestion I am eager to know if anything changes with you now that I have articulated my position better. Since you are writing a book on this topic I trust you would value my indulgence. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 30, 2012 22:24:25 GMT 3
Ok, DW, now I believe I have communicated ( here) as well as I can do on Jukwaa about the problem I identified in your claim of confirmation of ethnic differences in trusting outsiders. Since you have been forceful in countering my suggestion I am eager to know if anything changes with you now that I have articulated my position better. Since you are writing a book on this topic I trust you would value my indulgence. I think we're not going to agree there. I think it might be useful to hear from the authors of the study, since the data is theirs, so I've written to them asking him to clarify their significance tests; I've also asked them to explain the questions they used. Let's see what they say. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 30, 2012 22:33:16 GMT 3
This triggered my curiosity not only why they mistrust though more about the consequences of mistrust related to the PEV. It has unintentional to do with the Kikuyu though I recognised the mistrust and fear for others in my personal relations with Kikuyu friends and colleagues before, during and after the PEV of 2007/8. However the same could apply to any other group or tribe. Earlier, you told us that: The need to be in control leads to non-participation with others and isolation of the Kikuyu from the rest of Kenya. This reinforces the feeling that others cannot be trusted. It is a vicious circle reinforcing the need for control to the extent that they seek control at any cost. a consequence of which was: The Kikuyu should realize they are manipulated by fear. A long time ago they should have questioned their manipulators the cost to be in control. They didn’t though the ICC will show them the price they have to pay to be in control. Maybe they become aware the price for isolation and repeated mayhem is too high... That is, that Gikuyu mistrust leads to (repeated) violence. I am not aware to have stated how horrible and nasty Kikuyus are. Presumably, if one says, as you did, that: Kikuyus cannot trust anyone from outside. I get along with the statement one is not complimenting Gikuyu. You have read the paper and even writing a book about ethnic violence in Kenya. You could be an excellent contributor to the discussion I seek. However I feel there is lack of impartiality in your approach. You seems to be emotionally bound by mistrust even hatred for specific tribes. This disables you to understand what I write, adapting and distorting my quotes to fit into your perception of reality. Congratulations for spotting that I'm not an ODMer. The primary cause of the violence was ODM's campaign. That conclusion has been reached by a number of independent observers. While trust has a secondary role to play---since its erosion was one of the subsidiary causes of the violence---choosing to focus on it is a distraction. Best wishes. |
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Jan 30, 2012 22:35:57 GMT 3
Ok, DW, now I believe I have communicated ( here) as well as I can do on Jukwaa about the problem I identified in your claim of confirmation of ethnic differences in trusting outsiders. Since you have been forceful in countering my suggestion I am eager to know if anything changes with you now that I have articulated my position better. Since you are writing a book on this topic I trust you would value my indulgence. I think we're not going to agree there. I think it might be useful to hear from the authros of the study, since the data is theirs, so I've written to them asking him to clarify their significance tests; I've also asked them to explain the questions they used. Let's see what they say. don't forget to ask them to define "trust" what is trust - what and whom is being entrusted to do what exactly. i find it absurd that someone can ask me whether i trust lets say danielwaweru. trust danielwaweru to do what? trust is not an umbrella cover. its dependent on context, specific to tasks to be done, whether the tasks already have predefined process or whether tasks depend on integrity of individual etc. you might trust a bank teller with your cash, can you trust the bank teller with your child? you may trust one bank teller with your info, do you then trust the bank tellers tribe? yikes. this tribe thing is really being taken too far too much ambiguity in that document without looking at the underlying data/questionnaire too many idle people making a living, i think |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 30, 2012 22:48:56 GMT 3
I think we're not going to agree there. I think it might be useful to hear from the authros of the study, since the data is theirs, so I've written to them asking him to clarify their significance tests; I've also asked them to explain the questions they used. Let's see what they say. don't forget to ask them to define "trust" what is trust - what and whom is being entrusted to do what exactly. i find it absurd that someone can ask me whether i trust lets say danielwaweru. trust danielwaweru to do what? trust is not an umbrella cover. its dependent on context, specific to tasks to be done, whether the tasks already have predefined process or whether tasks depend on integrity of individual etc. you might trust a bank teller with your cash, can you trust the bank teller with your child? you may trust one bank teller with your info, do you then trust the bank tellers tribe? yikes. this tribe thing is really being taken too far too much ambiguity in that document without looking at the underlying data/questionnaire too many idle people making a living, i think The difficulty of defining trust did not stop ODM making it a central theme of their campaign that Gikuyu don't trust anyone, and nor has it stopped ODMers repeatedly making the point that Gikuyu don't trust anyone.You'll excuse my amusement regarding your new found interest in the concept. Nonetheless, trust is a vital concept, and ODM's mangling of it still leaves work to do. The researchers make it reasonably clear they mean political trust---warranted reliance on someone else to complete a joint political job. (Or something close enough). |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 30, 2012 23:09:08 GMT 3
trust danielwaweru to do what? trust is not an umbrella cover. its dependent on context, specific to tasks to be done, whether the tasks already have predefined process or whether tasks depend on integrity of individual etc. you might trust a bank teller with your cash, can you trust the bank teller with your child? you may trust one bank teller with your info, do you then trust the bank tellers tribe? There's something strange about these examples, because you seem to be confusing trust, reliance and trustworthiness. It can be quite reasonable to rely on someone you don't trust: if you know that your enemy always does the opposite of what you want him to do, then you can rely on him to do it. If your enemy always does the opposite of what you want to do, and he knows that you want him to lose your money, then your money is safe with him. A more plausible example is mutually-assured destruction. Neither the US and the USSR trusted each other. Nonetheless, they relied on each other, since each assumed the other would not destroy it, the costs of doing so being very grave. In your examples, from which you seem to want to argue that trust is context-dependent, you notice that, in some cases, people rely on bank tellers to handle their money, and yet would not be willing to give their children to the bank teller. You conclude that they trust them in one case, and not in the other. The difference between the first case and the second is that the children are worth more. When the stakes go up, you trust less. Therefore, trust is context-sensitive. This is not a very convincing argument, since it is very easy to flip round. You trust your maid with your children. But you don't trust her with your money. By parity with the first case, the children are worth less than the money. But it is obvious that the children are worth more than the money. There's something wrong with your argument. My diagnosis is this: in the case of the bank teller and the au pair, you're not trusting but relying on them, just as both the US and USSR relied on the USSR not to use nuclear weapons, even though neither trusted the other. You can rely on someone even though you do not think they're trustworthy. |
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Jan 30, 2012 23:20:10 GMT 3
trust danielwaweru to do what? trust is not an umbrella cover. its dependent on context, specific to tasks to be done, whether the tasks already have predefined process or whether tasks depend on integrity of individual etc. you might trust a bank teller with your cash, can you trust the bank teller with your child? you may trust one bank teller with your info, do you then trust the bank tellers tribe? There's something strange about these examples, because you seem to be confusing trust, reliance and trustworthiness. It can be quite reasonable to rely on someone you don't trust: if you know that your enemy always does the opposite of what you want him to do, then you can rely on him to do it. If your enemy always does the opposite of what you want to do, and he knows that you want him to lose your money, then your money is safe with him. A more plausible example is mutually-assured destruction. Neither the US and the USSR trusted each other. Nonetheless, they relied on each other, since each assumed the other would not destroy it, the costs of doing so being very grave. In your examples, from which you seem to want to argue that trust is context-dependent, you notice that, in some cases, people rely on bank tellers to handle their money, and yet would not be willing to give their children to the bank teller. You conclude that they trust them in one case, and not in the other. The difference between the first case and the second is that the children are worth more. When the stakes go up, you trust less. Therefore, trust is context-sensitive. This is not a very convincing argument, since it is very easy to flip round. You trust your maid with your children. But you don't trust her with your money. By parity with the first case, the children are worth less than the money. But it is obvious that the children are worth more than the money. There's something wrong with your argument. My diagnosis is this: in the case of the bank teller and the au pair, you're not trusting but relying on them, just as both the US and USSR relied on the USSR not to use nuclear weapons, even though neither trusted the other. You can rely on someone even though you do not think they're trustworthy. i think you make my point. trust is a combination of various atrributes under varying environment, relating to specific tasks. reliability, personal integrity, skill set etc form part of the mix. trust is the assurance that a someone you have assigned a task(s) has the right mix of attributes, skills and resources to fulfil the task. table 1 of that research appears to list this mix, then determines that .8% consider ethnicity such an attribute and then amazingly commit the rest of the resources and study on ethnicity. |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jan 30, 2012 23:36:13 GMT 3
Ok, DW, now I believe I have communicated (here) as well as I can do on Jukwaa about the problem I identified in your claim of confirmation of ethnic differences in trusting outsiders.
Since you have been forceful in countering my suggestion I am eager to know if anything changes with you now that I have articulated my position better. Since you are writing a book on this topic I trust you would value my indulgence. Good idea to direct it to them, but it is not the test of significance they need to clarify .... a test of significance for the responses would be deeply flawed, and meaningless. Test of signicance in Ordinary Least Squares models relies on a property of homoskedasticity. The selection bias introduced heteroskedasticity, as demonstrated by the correlation of "type of response" and "no response" at all. This observation is what they need to defend their work against -and they cannot, since it is factual. |
|
|
|
Post by merlin on Jan 30, 2012 23:41:45 GMT 3
This triggered my curiosity not only why they mistrust though more about the consequences of mistrust related to the PEV. It has unintentional to do with the Kikuyu though I recognised the mistrust and fear for others in my personal relations with Kikuyu friends and colleagues before, during and after the PEV of 2007/8. However the same could apply to any other group or tribe. Earlier, you told us that: The need to be in control leads to non-participation with others and isolation of the Kikuyu from the rest of Kenya. This reinforces the feeling that others cannot be trusted. It is a vicious circle reinforcing the need for control to the extent that they seek control at any cost. a consequence of which was: The Kikuyu should realize they are manipulated by fear. A long time ago they should have questioned their manipulators the cost to be in control. They didn’t though the ICC will show them the price they have to pay to be in control. Maybe they become aware the price for isolation and repeated mayhem is too high... That is, that Gikuyu mistrust leads to (repeated) violence. Presumably, if one says, as you did, that: one is not complimenting Gikuyu. You have read the paper and even writing a book about ethnic violence in Kenya. You could be an excellent contributor to the discussion I seek. However I feel there is lack of impartiality in your approach. You seems to be emotionally bound by mistrust even hatred for specific tribes. This disables you to understand what I write, adapting and distorting my quotes to fit into your perception of reality. Congratulations for spotting that I'm not an ODMer. The primary cause of the violence was ODM's campaign. That conclusion has been reached by a number of independent observers. While trust has a secondary role to play---since its erosion was one of the subsidiary causes of the violence---choosing to focus on it is a distraction. Best wishes. You keep distorting my entries in this thread. You While I wrote: Not only did you distort the actual text, you also take it out of context. The entry made a distinction between cannot be trusted and do not trust. The essential difference is that cannot is an option without choice and do not trust is a chosen option. As I explained before I responded to the comment of njamba which probably is the reason we ended mentioning the Kikuyu. However I am not interested in the tribe though in the consequences of mistrust. I have made several attempts to explain to you my intention and objectives for this discussion though you keep pushing the discussion into a tribal discussion even taking the liberty to distort my entries to cater for your tribal discussion. I get the impression you do this with ill intent and out of malice which takes away any ground for a constructive discussion. I let go. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 31, 2012 0:05:20 GMT 3
Earlier, you told us that: The need to be in control leads to non-participation with others and isolation of the Kikuyu from the rest of Kenya. This reinforces the feeling that others cannot be trusted. It is a vicious circle reinforcing the need for control to the extent that they seek control at any cost. a consequence of which was: The Kikuyu should realize they are manipulated by fear. A long time ago they should have questioned their manipulators the cost to be in control. They didn’t though the ICC will show them the price they have to pay to be in control. Maybe they become aware the price for isolation and repeated mayhem is too high... That is, that Gikuyu mistrust leads to (repeated) violence. Presumably, if one says, as you did, that: one is not complimenting Gikuyu. Congratulations for spotting that I'm not an ODMer. The primary cause of the violence was ODM's campaign. That conclusion has been reached by a number of independent observers. While trust has a secondary role to play---since its erosion was one of the subsidiary causes of the violence---choosing to focus on it is a distraction. Best wishes. You keep distorting my entries in this thread. You While I wrote: Not only did you distort the actual text, you also take it out of context. The entry made a distinction between cannot be trusted and do not trust. The essential difference is that cannot is an option without choice and do not trust is a chosen option. The distinction doesn't rescue the original claim. There's at least two kinds of grammatical modality expressed by can: ability and possibility. It may be possible to do something, although, for one reason or another, one lacks the ability to do so. The first claim is an attribution of ability-can to Gikuyu: that is, they lack the ability to trust others. The second is an attribution of possibility-can---it is possible to trust others, but, as a matter of fact, Gikuyu lack the ability to do so. You then proceeded to draw a variety of mad conclusions. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 31, 2012 0:18:40 GMT 3
i think you make my point. trust is a combination of various atrributes under varying environment, relating to specific tasks. reliability, personal integrity, skill set etc form part of the mix. [\quote] No, I don't. Your argument was that trust was context-sensitive. Context-sensitivity isn't a mushy way of saying anything goes. Rather, there's some structure to contexts, if only to distinguish them from one another. You gave an example which seemed to show that trust declined as the stakes rose. That example is perfectly invertible. You can get the exact same result if you invert it. That's why it's not good evidence of context-sensitivity. trust is the assurance that a someone you have assigned a task(s) has the right mix of attributes, skills and resources to fulfil the task. This wouldn't distinguish it from reliance. You can be sure that someone has the right mix of attributes, skills and resources, without also trusting them, as the MAD example shows. Further, the assurance needs to be warranted---you need some evidence for it. table 1 of that research appears to list this mix, then determines that .8% consider ethnicity such an attribute and then amazingly commit the rest of the resources and study on ethnicity. Perfectly understandable. (1) Ethnicity is the key variable in Kenyan politics. Indeed, there's very good evidence---from anecdote, theory and evidence---that self-reported ethnicity has become more important since 2005. Given ODM's campaign, this is only to be expected. (2) There's often a sharp distinction between Kenyans' self-description where ethnicity is concerned, and their actual preferences. There was some polling by Gallup after 2007-8 which seemed to show that Kenyans identified less with their ethnicities after the violence. Thoroughly implausible. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 31, 2012 0:20:45 GMT 3
I think we're not going to agree there. I think it might be useful to hear from the authors of the study, since the data is theirs, so I've written to them asking him to clarify their significance tests; I've also asked them to explain the questions they used. Let's see what they say. Good idea to direct it to them, but it is not the test of significance they need to clarify .... a test of significance for the responses would be deeply flawed, and meaningless. Test of signicance in Ordinary Least Squares models relies on a property of homoskedasticity. The selection bias introduced heteroskedasticity, as demonstrated by the correlation of "type of response" and "no response" at all. This observation is what they need to defend their work against -and they cannot, since it is factual. OK. I'll ask about that too. |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jan 31, 2012 0:52:33 GMT 3
Good idea to direct it to them, but it is not the test of significance they need to clarify .... a test of significance for the responses would be deeply flawed, and meaningless.
Test of signicance in Ordinary Least Squares models relies on a property of homoskedasticity. The selection bias introduced heteroskedasticity, as demonstrated by the correlation of "type of response" and "no response" at all. This observation is what they need to defend their work against -and they cannot, since it is factual. . I can assure you that the reason they did not report their test of significance is because it did not reveal such significance - a common problem with heteroskedastic models because the heteroskedasticity reduces confidence in estimates. From the analysis I have already presented I expect that the standard errors around their estimates are several times larger than the estimates themselves (and are largest for mijikenda and decreasing in the order Luhya, ALL, Luo, Kalejin, Kikuyu then Kamba). I hope we get the tests of significance and evaluate this speculation. A relationship between the error term of the model (which in this case is what I called no-response) is a NO NO in ordinary least squares. |
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Jan 31, 2012 1:13:56 GMT 3
i didnt want to dwell on your counter examples but because you do mention a MAD example and dont know which one it is, i look at your examples It can be quite reasonable to rely on someone you don't trust: if you know that your enemy always does the opposite of what you want him to do, then you can rely on him to do it. If your enemy always does the opposite of what you want to do, and he knows that you want him to lose your money, then your money is safe with him. am not sure what you are trying to say here, the correct term for this is deception (a popular PNU strategy) and as you know that would be on the opposite end of trust A more plausible example is mutually-assured destruction. Neither the US and the USSR trusted each other. Nonetheless, they relied on each other, since each assumed the other would not destroy it, the costs of doing so being very grave. and your point is? In your examples, from which you seem to want to argue that trust is context-dependent, you notice that, in some cases, people rely on bank tellers to handle their money, and yet would not be willing to give their children to the bank teller. You conclude that they trust them in one case, and not in the other. The difference between the first case and the second is that the children are worth more. When the stakes go up, you trust less. Therefore, trust is context-sensitive. This is not a very convincing argument, since it is very easy to flip round. You trust your maid with your children. But you don't trust her with your money. By parity with the first case, the children are worth less than the money. But it is obvious that the children are worth more than the money. There's something wrong with your argument. My diagnosis is this: in the case of the bank teller and the au pair, you're not trusting but relying on them, just as both the US and USSR relied on the USSR not to use nuclear weapons, even though neither trusted the other. You can rely on someone even though you do not think they're trustworthy. you have introduced more criteria than necessary but at the same time actually emphasized my point. the question is, trust the teller to do what with the children every morning parents put their children into matatus manned by touts and mathree drivers, in the hope (trust) that their children will get to school. the value for this task per transaction is anything between 10 and 80 shillings. is that the value of the children or is that the value of the task. should they trust the bank teller who handles millions with this task or the tout? like i said, trust is taken within the confined space of what tasks needs to be done and the individuals or even objects characteristics. now about reliance, trust, trustworthiness etc. reliance is a mechanical measurable characteristic, that form part of the evaluation criteria in building trust. e.g to move from point A to point B your trust in the vehicle will depend on how reliable the vehicle is, the abilities of the driver, fuel economies, etc, whatever criteria that you define to build your trust or trustworthiness of the vehicle just to be clear in the skewed examples you provide of deception as a strategy, the "trust" shifts from the intrinsic or described tasks (more deception), and is instead placed on the (shoulders of) abilities and skills/resources of the (master) schemer charged with creating the winning strategy (deception) that will entangle the others (am sure you can see why mutahi is so popular within some quarters). and then someone tell me how do we trust the schemer? |
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Jan 31, 2012 1:43:12 GMT 3
table 1 of that research appears to list this mix, then determines that .8% consider ethnicity such an attribute and then amazingly commit the rest of the resources and study on ethnicity. Perfectly understandable. (1) Ethnicity is the key variable in Kenyan politics. Indeed, there's very good evidence---from anecdote, theory and evidence---that self-reported ethnicity has become more important since 2005. Given ODM's campaign, this is only to be expected. (2) There's often a sharp distinction between Kenyans' self-description where ethnicity is concerned, and their actual preferences. There was some polling by Gallup after 2007-8 which seemed to show that Kenyans identified less with their ethnicities after the violence. Thoroughly implausible. looking at that "research" given the numbers they come up with in table 1. there is no reason in that text that makes them veer from the other more significant findings (delivery, ability to handle finances etc) to the lowest placed item at 0.8% i.e not even 1% having zeroed in this insignificant factor as recorded, they then proceed to build their case. it would appear that they do not even "trust" (that word again) their own questionnaire to point them in the right direction to begin with. if need be I will look at the numbers but will await to get some feedback from you perhaps provide the data in the underlying tables used for this analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 31, 2012 1:54:42 GMT 3
i didnt want to dwell on your counter examples but because you do mention a MAD example and dont know which one it is, i look at your examples you go. It can be quite reasonable to rely on someone you don't trust: if you know that your enemy always does the opposite of what you want him to do, then you can rely on him to do it. If your enemy always does the opposite of what you want to do, and he knows that you want him to lose your money, then your money is safe with him. am not sure what you are trying to say here, the correct term for this is deception (a popular PNU strategy) and as you know that would be on the opposite end of trust No on both counts, not least because the antonym of trust is betrayal. Trust=!Reliance. Therefore, no inference from reliance. Your examples prove reliance at best. Therefore, they say nothing about trust. you have introduced more criteria than necessary but at the same time actually emphasised my point. You made an argument aimed at showing context-sensitivity of trust. That is, the same action or set of actions can count as trust in one context, and fail to count as trust in another context. Generally, if you make that sort of argument, it's a good idea to identify the shifting parameter---that is, the factor that changes one context to another. In this case, it's the value of the child, which is supposed to raise the stakes, and thereby diminish trust. The problem with that reasoning is that the exact same criterion can be inverted. Start with your example. In context 1, I rely on the bank teller to sort out my money, but I don't rely on the bank teller to sort out my children. Conclude that trust diminishes with rising stakes, since children are more valuable than money. Now, invert the contexts: I rely on the au pair to sort out my children, and I don't trust her to sort out my money. Is it because your money is more valuable than the child? No. So your simple rule doesn't work: trust need not diminish with rising stakes. The phenomenon you've picked out is reliance, not trust. the question is, trust the teller to do what with the children Trust generally entails trustworthiness; it is reliance which is relativised to particular tasks. every morning parents put their children into matatus manned by touts and mathree drivers, in the hope (trust) that their children will get to school. the value for this task per transaction is anything between 10 and 80 shillings. is that the value of the children or is that the value of the task. should they trust the bank teller who handles millions with this task or the tout? In this case, presumably it's the payment which secures reliance. now about reliance, trust, trustworthiness etc. reliance is a mechanical measurable characteristic, that form part of the evaluation criteria in building trust. e.g to move from point A to point B your trust in the vehicle will depend on how reliable the vehicle is, the abilities of the driver, fuel economies, etc, whatever criteria that you define to build your trust or trustworthiness of the vehicle Reliance is neither measurable nor mechanical. It's not mechanical because it can be given or withdrawn for reasons. Nor is it measurable: that is, it can't be given by a particular degree of subjective probability. One way to see that point is to consider reliance on your beliefs. If you know something, you can rely on it. But knowledge can't be identified with a particular subjective credence (though you might think that your credence must be >0). |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 31, 2012 1:57:51 GMT 3
in the skewed examples you provide of deception as a strategy, the "trust" shifts from the intrinsic or described tasks (more deception), and is instead placed on the (shoulders of) abilities and skills/resources of the (master) schemer charged with creating the winning strategy (deception) that will entangle the others (am sure you can see why mutahi is so popular within some quarters). and then someone tell me how do we trust the schemer? Eh? It's uncontroversial that the object of trust is people, not their abilities. That's one of the distinctions between reliance and trust: your car may be unreliable but it can't betray you. |
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Jan 31, 2012 2:10:36 GMT 3
am not even going to mess around with your description/perception, no need to reinvent the wheel and conclude with this. dictionary.reference.com/browse/trusttrust == noun 1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence. 2. confident expectation of something; hope. 3. confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust. 4. a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust. 5. the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted. verb (used without object) 13. to rely upon or place confidence in someone or something (usually followed by in or to ): to trust in another's honesty; trusting to luck. 14. to have confidence; hope: Things work out if one only trusts. 15. to sell merchandise on credit. verb (used with object) 16. to have trust or confidence in; rely or depend on. 17. to believe. 18. to expect confidently; hope (usually followed by a clause or infinitive as object): trusting the job would soon be finished; trusting to find oil on the land. 19. to commit or consign with trust or confidence. 20. to permit to remain or go somewhere or to do something without fear of consequences: He does not trust his children out of his sight. == from the same thesaurus == Definition: belief in something as true, trustworthy Synonyms: assurance, certainty, certitude, confidence, conviction, credence, credit, dependence, entrustment, expectation, faith, gospel truth, hope, positiveness, reliance, stock, store, sureness Antonyms: disbelief, distrust, mistrust == i notice betrayal is glaringly missing but am sure some other dictionary may have it in there |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 31, 2012 2:14:42 GMT 3
am not even going to mess around with your description/perception, no need to reinvent the wheel and conclude with this. dictionary.reference.com/browse/trusttrust == noun 1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence. 2. confident expectation of something; hope. 3. confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust. 4. a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust. 5. the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted. verb (used without object) 13. to rely upon or place confidence in someone or something (usually followed by in or to ): to trust in another's honesty; trusting to luck. 14. to have confidence; hope: Things work out if one only trusts. 15. to sell merchandise on credit. verb (used with object) 16. to have trust or confidence in; rely or depend on. 17. to believe. 18. to expect confidently; hope (usually followed by a clause or infinitive as object): trusting the job would soon be finished; trusting to find oil on the land. 19. to commit or consign with trust or confidence. 20. to permit to remain or go somewhere or to do something without fear of consequences: He does not trust his children out of his sight. == from the same thesaurus == Definition: belief in something as true, trustworthy Synonyms: assurance, certainty, certitude, confidence, conviction, credence, credit, dependence, entrustment, expectation, faith, gospel truth, hope, positiveness, reliance, stock, store, sureness Antonyms: disbelief, distrust, mistrust == i notice betrayal is glaringly missing but am sure some other dictionary may have it in there Ah yes, the dictionary gambit. Well, the dictionary offers definitions of knowledge, truth, goodness, crime, and perception. So, I guess, people who work in logic, epistemology, the theory of truth, theory of criminal law, or cognitive psychology should drop what they're doing right now and look up the meanings of the words in the dictionary---if they're going to get a hold of central concepts in their field of study. Actually, maybe the best example here is the debate over the definition of fascism. (An even better example may be the difference between the dictionary definition of cause, and the view of a leading analysts of causation.) |
|
|
|
Post by danieldotwaweru on Jan 31, 2012 2:36:29 GMT 3
am not even going to mess around with your description/perception, no need to reinvent the wheel and conclude with this. dictionary.reference.com/browse/trusttrust == noun 1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence. 2. confident expectation of something; hope. 3. confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust. 4. a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust. 5. the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted. verb (used without object) 13. to rely upon or place confidence in someone or something (usually followed by in or to ): to trust in another's honesty; trusting to luck. 14. to have confidence; hope: Things work out if one only trusts. 15. to sell merchandise on credit. verb (used with object) 16. to have trust or confidence in; rely or depend on. 17. to believe. 18. to expect confidently; hope (usually followed by a clause or infinitive as object): trusting the job would soon be finished; trusting to find oil on the land. 19. to commit or consign with trust or confidence. 20. to permit to remain or go somewhere or to do something without fear of consequences: He does not trust his children out of his sight. == from the same thesaurus == Definition: belief in something as true, trustworthy Synonyms: assurance, certainty, certitude, confidence, conviction, credence, credit, dependence, entrustment, expectation, faith, gospel truth, hope, positiveness, reliance, stock, store, sureness Antonyms: disbelief, distrust, mistrust == i notice betrayal is glaringly missing but am sure some other dictionary may have it in there I notice, also, that the dictionary definition of urine dictionary.reference.com/browse/urinedoes not mention that it contains urea. Are we to conclude that any chemical analysis of urine which finds that it contains urea must be mistaken? After all the the dictionary itself says nothing about urea. Yet another example. A famous philosopher once said that justice is nothing more than fairness. A famous lawyer/economist once said that justice is nothing more than efficiency. The dictionary definition of justice says nothing about either theory. Are we to assume that they're both wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by tnk on Jan 31, 2012 2:41:19 GMT 3
Are we to assume that they're both wrong? i don't know about those others, but i conclude you are always right and i bow out while i still have my head on |
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Jan 31, 2012 3:16:53 GMT 3
Ethnicity and Trust
How much do you Trust Kenyans from other Ethnic Groups in %
Kikuyu: 20.8 (Not at all ); 42.0 (Just a little ); 28.8 (Somewhat); 7.5 ( A lot)
Luo: 20.3 (Not at all ); 41.9 (Just a little ); 30.4 (Somewhat); 4.7 ( A lot)
Folks,
I need help. I think my math is letting me down here.
Danielwaweru says, according to the statistics above, Luo are the least trusting of those outside their group. Is this really what the stats above indicate?
Please also note that while the total % for Kikuyu in all categories of response sums up to 99.1%, for Luo it sums up to 97.3%. How does one explain this discrepancy in this survey?
Source: www.econ.uconn.edu/working/2008-35.pdf on page 5 The study does not confirm that the Luo are the least trusting of those outside their group. You cannot just read the magnitudes of parameter estimates in statistics and conclude that one is larger than another. You have to be equiped with information as to the statistical significance of the given magnitudes to conclude that those magnitudes are sufficient proof of a difference in the two groups for which the magnitudes speak. In this case the study does not test the statistical significance of the responses across ethnic groups. There is more. If we assume the response "a lot" is equivalent to "perfect trust or no distrust", then we would need to sum the first 3 columns to determine the percentage of interviewees that indicated that they at least somewhat distrust those outside their group. If you do that, you find that in simple magnitudes, the Kamba seem to be the least likely to trust those outside their group (at 94.6%), followed by the Luo (at 92.6%), then the Kikuyu (at 91.6%). We cannot conclude that those percentages are a confirmation of differences of distrust for those outside one's ethnic group, but we can say that the study provides basis for such an opinion ( a hypothesis that Kambas are most distruting, followed by Luos, then Kikuyus). If we want to claim that the study "confirms" such an ethnic relationship, we need a test of significance between those 3 percentages and between each of the pairs that can be compared among them (that is we need to test the hypothesis stated above). From my quick look at the paper, I do not see where the paper addressed such a test of significance. Note: The fact that we have to make an assumption like the one I suggest above points to the incompleteness (or ambiguity) of the response space, and the likely explanation of why the sums of responses are so distant from 100%. I think the percentage response is determined on the basis of the total number of interviewees while some did not answer the question , or at least did not indicate answers inside the "Not at all Just a little Somewhat A lot" space. Rounding errors alone cannot explain the wide deviation of summed %s from 100%. The signficance of the study design problem is clearer when you look at what it tells us about the community that it suggests is most trusting of outsiders - the Mijikenda, for whom only 80% seem to habor some distrust. Now, look at the summed percentage responses across the response space, and you will notice the Mijikenda were also the least responsive to the question. Now, if you look back at the ranking of "apparent likelihood to trust" and "deviation of summed responding %s from 100%", you notice a very good correlation between the two. This suggests that the imperfect design of the response space led to a selective non-response whereby the category of non responders seem to be likely to pick a response that was lost or contorted by the imperfection. Thanks, you've brilliantly explained the flaw in that survey. There is nothing to add from my side. The guys who carried out that survey are not worth their salt. And Danielwaweru is actually relying fully on those flawed findings!!?? Danielwaweru,You had better listen to Man K. He is more versed in the realm of mathematics/statistics than you. By the way, did I see you adding oranges onto bananas and thereafter going ahead to subtract from them potatoes that had been previously added onto cabbages to get.....what? What result did you actually get or expect to get from that vile concoction? That was the last you heard from me on your misleading statistics. Your lies have been exposed for what they are, but feel free to try again from another front. We SHALL still expose you. We don't sleep on Jukwaa!! |
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jan 31, 2012 7:21:02 GMT 3
The study does not confirm that the Luo are the least trusting of those outside their group. You cannot just read the magnitudes of parameter estimates in statistics and conclude that one is larger than another. You have to be equiped with information as to the statistical significance of the given magnitudes to conclude that those magnitudes are sufficient proof of a difference in the two groups for which the magnitudes speak. In this case the study does not test the statistical significance of the responses across ethnic groups. There is more. If we assume the response "a lot" is equivalent to "perfect trust or no distrust", then we would need to sum the first 3 columns to determine the percentage of interviewees that indicated that they at least somewhat distrust those outside their group. If you do that, you find that in simple magnitudes, the Kamba seem to be the least likely to trust those outside their group (at 94.6%), followed by the Luo (at 92.6%), then the Kikuyu (at 91.6%). We cannot conclude that those percentages are a confirmation of differences of distrust for those outside one's ethnic group, but we can say that the study provides basis for such an opinion ( a hypothesis that Kambas are most distruting, followed by Luos, then Kikuyus). If we want to claim that the study "confirms" such an ethnic relationship, we need a test of significance between those 3 percentages and between each of the pairs that can be compared among them (that is we need to test the hypothesis stated above). From my quick look at the paper, I do not see where the paper addressed such a test of significance. Note: The fact that we have to make an assumption like the one I suggest above points to the incompleteness (or ambiguity) of the response space, and the likely explanation of why the sums of responses are so distant from 100%. I think the percentage response is determined on the basis of the total number of interviewees while some did not answer the question , or at least did not indicate answers inside the "Not at all Just a little Somewhat A lot" space. Rounding errors alone cannot explain the wide deviation of summed %s from 100%. The signficance of the study design problem is clearer when you look at what it tells us about the community that it suggests is most trusting of outsiders - the Mijikenda, for whom only 80% seem to habor some distrust. Now, look at the summed percentage responses across the response space, and you will notice the Mijikenda were also the least responsive to the question. Now, if you look back at the ranking of "apparent likelihood to trust" and "deviation of summed responding %s from 100%", you notice a very good correlation between the two. This suggests that the imperfect design of the response space led to a selective non-response whereby the category of non responders seem to be likely to pick a response that was lost or contorted by the imperfection.
Man K,
Thanks, you've brilliantly explained the flaw in that survey. There is nothing to add from my side. The guys who carried out that survey are not worth their salt. And Danielwaweru is actually relying fully on those flawed findings!!??
....You could say that again! |
|
|
|
Post by b6k on Jan 31, 2012 7:46:08 GMT 3
ODM officials who spoke at the function said the political equation in Meru has changed drastically and the Meru people were no longer going to support a presidential candidate just because he is from the Mt Kenya region. The officials who were led by the former Ntonyiri MP Maoka Maore added it was a myth that the Mt Kenya region in general and Meru in particular was anti-Odinga. They said: “Indeed this will be demonstrated in the coming elections that will see Raila garnering a majority votes in the region.” [/b] www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2012/01/pm-to-intervene-over-dutch-khat-ban/[/quote]Folks, the above article by Judie Kaberia shared by Kathure on another thread is what I had in mind when I asked whether RAO should write off Central vote. I therefore ask again, as much as the Meru have warmed up to him, have the Kikuyu gone in the opposite direction if the heckling of Githunguri in Kiambu for his open support of RAO is anything to go by? |
|
|
|
Post by einstein on Jan 31, 2012 8:40:33 GMT 3
ODM officials who spoke at the function said the political equation in Meru has changed drastically and the Meru people were no longer going to support a presidential candidate just because he is from the Mt Kenya region. The officials who were led by the former Ntonyiri MP Maoka Maore added it was a myth that the Mt Kenya region in general and Meru in particular was anti-Odinga. They said: “Indeed this will be demonstrated in the coming elections that will see Raila garnering a majority votes in the region.” [/b] www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2012/01/pm-to-intervene-over-dutch-khat-ban/[/quote]Folks, the above article by Judie Kaberia shared by Kathure on another thread is what I had in mind when I asked whether RAO should write off Central vote. I therefore ask again, as much as the Meru have warmed up to him, have the Kikuyu gone in the opposite direction if the heckling of Githunguri in Kiambu for his open support of RAO is anything to go by? [/quote] B6K,You are perfectly in order to reclaim your thread! I apologise for having been one of those who contributed in the hijacking of the thread, but I hope you understand that it was necessary. Please go on with your mission, but forgive a brother! |
|
