Under the Supervision of an Islamic Professors and funded by an Islamic body, Islamophobia report authors grossly , grossly misinterpret and mis-report data.
They “weight data” “apply odds ratios” write off results, apply unstated “psychological differences” form conclusions on low data sets, apply “exponential of estimates” and use “unobserved underlying intervals”.
Take Islamophobia Social Distance and the Fear of Terrorism in Australia.
University of SA Preliminary Report.
Table 36. The Authors state:
“The unemployed and people not in the labour force are significantly more fearful of terrorism than those who are gainfully employed. In other words economic insecurity adversely affects fear of terrorism.”
This is simply not true on their own data. Their own data sets showed
51% of employed are extremely worried about terrorism.
58.46% of employed are “very much worried”,
60.13% are moderately worried and 59.76 are a little worried.
The only category left is “not worried” into which only 197 people of the 990 surveyed fitted.
Of that very small number there was 71/21 split in favour of the unemployed.
The report authors grossly , I repeat grossly, manipulate and misinterpret the data.
Islamophobia Social Distance and the Fear of Terrorism in Australia.
University of SA Preliminary Report.
Under the Supervision of an Islamic Professor and funded by an Islamic body, The report authors grossly , repeat grossly misinterpret and report data.
They “weight data” “apply odds ratios” write off results, apply unstated “psychological differences” form conclusions on low data sets, apply “exponential of estimates” and use “unobserved underlying intervals”.
Table 36. The Authors state: “The unemployed and people not in the labour force are significantly more fearful of terrorism than those who are gainfully employed. In other words economic insecurity adversely affects fear of terrorism.”
This is simply not true on their own data. 51% of employed are extremely worried about terrorism. 58.46% of employed are “very much worried”, 60.13% are moderately worried and 59.76 are a little worried. The only category left is “not worried” into which only 197 people of the 990 surveyed fitted. Of that very small number there was 71/21 split in favour of the unemployed.
The report authors grossly , I repeat grossly, manipulate and misinterpret the data.
Australian Cultural Suicide at work. University of South Australia (with a State 2.2% Muslim Population) has an
"International Centre for Muslim and Non-Muslim understanding."
We all know that "Muslim" translates fairly accurately to the English meaning of "One who has submitted - to Allah according to Mohommeds ideas about this imaginary friend"
So the Institution that we have set up with a Professor in Charge is called.
South Australian International Centre for those who have submitted and those of you who have not (yet) submitted.
And guess who pays for that?
In its latest report, out just now, I do not see much about how those who have submitted need to understand Australian non religious society and so-far I see an awful lot about judging us as having an irrational fear bordering on a pyschiatric problem over them. This is their starting point as the report is headed "Islamophobia"
They cite with approval a report from Runnymede Trust. The Runnymede Trust is a left-wing think tank founded in 1968. The quoted Runnymede Trust report begins by describing the nature of anti-Muslim prejudice and draws a key distinction between closed views of Islam on the one hand and open views on the other.
Islamophobia is equated with closed views “Racial violence is all of a piece therefore with anti-Muslim prejudice.” The key recommendation is that this must be explicitly recognised in whatever new legislation
may be introduced. A legal term such as ‘religious and racial violence’ is required.
Yet the Uni SA questions show that when the questions are about “Muslims” and not about “ Islam” just 6.6% agree they are uncomfortable with Muslim people.
I say this shows Australians know the difference between ordinary Aussie Muslims and the totalitarian ideology.
No questions are asked about how Australians feel about “Islam” even though Islam and not just Muslims are an integral part of Runnymede’s definition.
When questions were asked only about people, “Muslims” Only 1.5% Australians are labelled as highly Islamphobic. That is to say – having a closed view and not able to listen to contrary positions.
State by State analysis showed that SA registered not a single high level islamophobe when questioned about Muslim People (as opposed to the ideology). (nor does NT or ACT).
The assertion that the phobia increases with age is just not right. It is not sustainable on their own tabled stats.
Taking the mid level of their scale of phobia level, 3rd out of 5 levels.
18 to 20 year olds reached a scale of 22.5
This was much greater than 25 to 34 year olds at 16.5
It was Greater than 35 -44 year olds 22.3
and Much Greater than 45-54 year olds 14.4,
Greater than 55-64 year olds 20.9
Nearly as much as 65-74 year olds 24.1
And is only an accurate assertion of those who are 75 years plus at 42.7 who are basically twice as concerned about “Muslims” as the rest but were not asked to distinguish between “Muslims” and the Ideology of Islam.
The analysis of phobia by political affiliation is asserted even though the writers (in the report but not the summary) state that their multivariate analysis makes political party affiliation “less apparent” As a matter of (their) facts Greens were the Highest level 2 Islamophobics even beating “no party affiliation.”
There is a very significant question about the reliability of the results. When Religion was used as a measure of phobia Jews came out with a zero on levels 1,3,4 and 5. (100% level 2) But only two Jews were surveyed. This compares with those who followed Islam who registered 28.5% level 2 Islamophobia and 71.6% level 1 with 26 “Islam” people being surveyed.
In other words those who identified as “Islam” according to the definitions in the report “hate themselves”
By the time we get to table thirteen, “levels of worry about terrorism”, the proper conclusion to be drawn from the data is “who knows what it means?” In the alternative we could conclude that those with level one Islamophobia, which includes 71.6% of “Islams” surveyed, are 51% worried about terrorism.
Controversially the authors of the report “write off” as not significant that the majority of those surveyed who measured level 2 or 3 on their “phobia” scale (70%) answered that they felt their community “did help neighbours” . Perhaps the authors did not want to conclude that community minded people could still be phobic according to their definitions.
In other words, the author’s ignored the fact that those they labelled as “Islamophobes” were otherwise community minded. (table 14 page 15)
It also appears that the authors “have reason to believe that ...psychological differences between these points are not equal.” Who knows what those unstated reasons are? They are not expressed in the report. What follows on page 16 of the report is obfuscation beyond measure. They say that the report is a reversion to “exponential of estimates” of [expected results] using “unobserved underlying intervals”.
In other words they have mucked about with the data.
From this point in the report it appears that data is “weighted” according to these beliefs and estimates and unobserved assumptions. As a holder of three degrees I cannot be bothered “unweighting” the obfuscated data or the “odds ratios” applied to raw data.
I suspect that is the expectation. I have no doubt my critique will be attacked for this.
When it comes to obtuse terms like “social distance of Muslims” they are simply not supported by any raw datum. Even so (see table 29) huge lumps of flocculated data which are inconsistent with the reports surmised “estimates” are written off as being not statistically significant by the authors
.
As to terrorism out of 1,000 only 197 Australians do not worry.
Table 36. The Authors state: “The unemployed and people not in the labour force are significantly more fearful of terrorism than those who are gainfully employed. In other words economic insecurity adversely affects fear of terrorism.”
This is simply not true on their own data.
51% of employed are extremely worried about terrorism. 58.46% of employed are “very much worried” 60.13% are moderately worried and 59.76 are a little worried. The only category left is “not worried” into which only 197 people of the 990 surveyed fitted. Of that very small number there was 71/21 split in favour of the unemployed.
The report authors grossly , repeat grossly misinterpret and report the data.
The raw data is:
Worry about terrorism (N = 996)
Not at all 18.3%
A little 31.1%
Moderately 27.5%
Very much 13.9%
Extremely 9.2%
To add that all up . More that 80% of Australians do worry about terrorism.
I suggest that is why the authors go to so much effort to “weight data” “apply odds ratios” write off results, apply unstated “psychological differences” form conclusions on low data (two Jewish respondents) and apply “exponential of estimates” and use “unobserved underlying intervals”.
21st January 2016