Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fusion2, I work at a college. A lot of what I do involves sociology to some degree. It's almost completely opinion viewed through a euro-centric lens. There is little to no objectivity. I also am skeptical that you understand what the word "quantify" means.
.
Well i'm skeptical that you understand what the word quantify means and I didn 't introduce that word into the discussion btw - you did.. I mean is there anything that can be measured to at least some degree in terms of QOL in your opinion or are you just so far above HDI and the OECD that all criteria looked at are just outright dismissed because a sociologist or someone dabbling in sociology at a random College decides they are completely irrelavent. I also agreed with you that QOL isn't something that you can completely measure in a survey - there are limits..
Aside from that - there aren't really any major difference in the top 25 that you've eluded to and I agree with you there - we are talking barely just noticeable differences among that group. I wasn't getting at city lists either - those are definately more dubious than HDI and OECD for sure..
QOL surveys are great if you are a white, left-leaning, euro-centric, Germanic individual. Which is why places like Germany, Scandinavia and the English-speaking world always top the lists. According to sociologists they were the best places in 1907, and 1937, and they still are today in 2015.
Someone finally gets it. It seems like they shuffle words around, but they keep saying the same things. I don't really have a problem with QOL surveys, but I can't believe that some people really believe that they are reliable. It's rubbish. I wish people paid this kind of attention to math, science, and other real subjects that aren't just hot air and relative opinions.
Well i'm skeptical that you understand what the word quantify means and I didn 't introduce that word into the discussion btw - you did.. I mean is there anything that can be measured to at least some degree in terms of QOL in your opinion or are you just so far above HDI and the OECD that all criteria looked at are just outright dismissed because a sociologist or someone dabbling in sociology at a random College decides they are completely irrelavent. I also agreed with you that QOL isn't something that you can completely measure in a survey - there are limits..
No not at all.. I know he's your bud and you'll stick with him but he asked me if I understood about the word 'quantify' - he introduced the word I didn't.. Regardless I do think there are some things that can be objectively measured that will give a good degree of confidence that the foundation for a reasonable QOL will exist.. I mean if a nation is ravaged by disease, a large percentage of the population doesn't have access to HC, clean water and food that will get them through the day - its hard them to be thinking about the other side of Maslow's pyramid.. With that said, I completely agree with those who say there are sociological aspects to QOL that can't possibly be measure by a survey.. This is particularly the case when the fundamental aspects to survival are taken care of by the majority of the citizenry in any nation.
No not at all.. I know he's your bud and you'll stick with him but he asked me if I understood about the word 'quantify' - he introduced the word I didn't.. Regardless I do think there are some things that can be objectively measured that will give a good degree of confidence that the foundation for a reasonable QOL will exist.. I mean if a nation is ravaged by disease, a large percentage of the population doesn't have access to HC, clean water and food that will get them through the day - its hard them to be thinking about the other side of Maslow's pyramid.. With that said, I completely agree with those who say there are sociological aspects to QOL that can't possibly be measure by a survey.. This is particularly the case when the fundamental aspects to survival are taken care of by the majority of the citizenry in any nation.
He isn't "my bud" he is just saying things that make a lot of sense. I might agree with you if you weren't just throwing words around and getting emotional. For the record, you brought up quantify on page 106, if it really matters. It just seems to me that you are taking it personally again that people don't think Toronto is that great, and you need to use hot air from QOL surveys to feel better about it. That's what it looks like.
He isn't "my bud" he is just saying things that make a lot of sense. I might agree with you if you weren't just throwing words around and getting emotional. For the record, you brought up quantify on page 106, if it really matters. It just seems to me that you are taking it personally again that people don't think Toronto is that great, and you need to use hot air from QOL surveys to feel better about it. That's what it looks like.
Throwing words around to get emotional hmmm... I think the fact you are underscoring these things are just serving the same purpose to which you accuse me - I don't really see that at all.. I might have brought up the word quantify first - lets replace that with measure. Why would you even bring up Toronto into this again another tactic to just throw things off from the discussion or to try and throw me off- you might be right about quantify but I certainly didn't bring up Toronto in this thread at all.. I could care less if some people don't like Toronto and don't want to live in it - to each his own! We can focus on a word here and there - or we can focus on ideas..
As for hot air regarding QOL survey's.. Look if you think HDI and OECD are just a bunch of hot air than so be it.. I definately think there are some aspects/criteria that are measurable that will provide at least the foundations to a good QOL but again, they aren't going to measure every element that makes up QOL - there are too many subjective/preferential elements and those we do leave to sociology and psychology really.
For some it would seem it's all about using the accusation of "personal feelings" to bolster a weak position made even weaker by that very prerogative.
There are many reasons why QOL surveys are held and published. There are also many reasons why many discount them but being "nothing but hot" air is not a valid one.
Using a set of criteria that are stipulated prior to the poll being taken and then consulting those criteria in a logical manner afterwards to ascertain what value a particular survey has for you would seem a more productive use of your time than simply categorizing all QOL surveys and therefore; due to their very nature being parallel, ALL surveys as useless.
If the only criteria stipulated is driving on the right side of the roadway being imperative to you; taking part in a survey how would you rank New Zealand in QOL, would seem rather oxymoronic would it not? So too would be taking that particular survey into consideration if you were considering New Zealand for your new home with an idea that your children's education was first and foremost. Easy Peazy, eh?
The old adage of "GIGO" as it applies to surveys attaining the results desired by using questions designed to mitigate alternatives is undoubtedly applicable but so too is the use of common sense when accessing surveys to glean any worthwhile knowledge. They serve a purpose and have a valuable place in reasoned considerations. Using them as defacto analysis without question is questionable but dismissing them out of hand is also a failure of cognitive reasoning.
It is like with Scottish independence, the English inhabitants of Scotland voted on independence, even though they are not Scottish. Why are they being asked?
Put aside tourists and temporary workers, there are many anglophones in Quebec and for generations, we can't consider them non-quebecers. They are not part of the french nation, I agree and they clash with francos pov as much as other anglo canadians, but they are Quebecois and we can't blame them for our lack of pride and confidence... if french quebecers would really be convinced about independance, then it would occur. Anglo Quebecers are part of our history and heritage, excluding them would demonstrate how week we are as a nation. Independance is a noble cause and it is our responsibility to make it happen with diligence
I know what he is getting at and its essentially My Quebec includes only Francophone Quebecers so that when a referendum occurs it will only account for those votes.
He is right that most anglo are against independance and I can understand his frustration toward quebec's anglo since they never show any trust into "french" political initiatives whatsoever, but the root of exclusion is a garanty for failures. Quebec independance should be for north american french culture prosperity yes, but to also to better focus on Quebec development, which should capture anglo Quebecers attention eventually
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
again another tactic to just throw things off from the discussion or to try and throw me off- you might be right about quantify but I certainly didn't bring up Toronto in this thread at all.. I could care less if some people don't like Toronto and don't want to live in it - to each his own! We can focus on a word here and there - or we can focus on ideas.. 
