There is no such thing as public opinion, example #421

A headline from Variety:

Study: Audiences Want Metal Detectors in Theaters, But Won’t Pay Extra

Fortunately the study shows exactly the opposite; the public doesn’t want metal detectors in movie theatres.  But it’s still rather frightening that 34% of the public does claim to hold that rather insane opinion. The “won’t pay extra” is a nice little cherry on top.  Let me guess; that same 34% wants a $15 minimum wage, but “won’t pay extra” for Big Macs.

PS.  In Switzerland a referendum for a $25 minimum wage actually got 24% of the vote.  My theory of public opinion polls is that there is almost no question so crazy that it won’t get at least 20% support.  And if it doesn’t (say legalizing hard drugs) it’s probably a good idea.


Tags:

 
 
 

21 Responses to “There is no such thing as public opinion, example #421”

  1. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    16. August 2015 at 14:45

    Scott, why are you reading Variety?

  2. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    16. August 2015 at 14:55

    Since when was LSD a hard drug?

  3. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    16. August 2015 at 15:57

    Morgan, I don’t really, I just saw the headline at Yahoo or some place like that.

    E. Harding, Who said it was?

  4. Gravatar of benjamin cole benjamin cole
    16. August 2015 at 15:59

    At the Amtrak station in downtown Los Angeles, a passenger must pass through a metal detector and show ID to get onto a train.

    Be very afraid of terrorists!

  5. Gravatar of ben ben
    16. August 2015 at 16:33

    It’s your chance to have a law. Sumner’s law.

  6. Gravatar of Chuck Chuck
    16. August 2015 at 19:56

    Study: People are stupid.

  7. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    16. August 2015 at 20:05

    Sumner’s observation is wrong. The way a question is answered depends on how is phrased: “would you pay 1 penny extra to have a metal detector at a theater?” vs “would you pay extra to have a metal detector at a theatre?”. Big difference, especially in the UK where guns are rare.

  8. Gravatar of Anand Anand
    17. August 2015 at 01:08

    Of course, questions can be framed to get different opinions. But that is not limited to public in general, it is just inherent in the way people think. For instance, see all your posts about “tight money”. If you ask the question in a certain way, probably you can get the majority of the economics profession to agree.

    There are forces in society which frame issues in certain ways, and people are (sometimes) aware of that. It is the only way to have any politics of any significance, as groups.

    This extends to individual choices. See advertising.

  9. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    17. August 2015 at 04:13

    Benjamin, Yes and the idiots don’t even realize that terrorists could get on the train at a station down the line with no problem.

    Ray, You said:

    “Sumner’s observation is wrong. The way a question is answered depends on how is phrased:”

    Um, that was exactly my point.

  10. Gravatar of J Mann J Mann
    17. August 2015 at 05:23

    Julian Sanchez had an interesting theory back when “Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen and deliberately permitted it” regularly got 30% of Democrats. Basically, when you don’t have money or other consequences, it’s fulfilling to hold and express some fairly nutty beliefs.

  11. Gravatar of Njnnja Njnnja
    17. August 2015 at 05:30

    I just saw a show by the magicians Penn and Teller who do a funny bit about a metal detector at an airport. They carry around a metal card with a copy of the bill of rights engraved on it, and purposefully walk through the TSA metal detectors with the card. When it sets it off, and the TSA agent won’t let them travel with the small, but potentially dangerous [sic] metal object, they can say “Yes, you may take my rights.”

  12. Gravatar of TallDave TallDave
    17. August 2015 at 06:29

    Demand for security rises with perceived exposure to savages. People who want metal detectors in theatres presumably tend to live in neighborhoods where (e.g.) bars on windows are common due to high levels of burglary and public shootings are more common. Of course these measures are often futile, the only reliable way to reduce exposure to crime is to assiduously associate with only the civilized.

    Great story Njnnja!

  13. Gravatar of collin collin
    17. August 2015 at 07:47

    I surprised metal detectors at movie theaters is not higher as I know gun control usually does not work.

    I might pay a $.25 higher for theater with a metal detector especially if I lived in Texas.

  14. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    17. August 2015 at 10:50

    @ssumner
    I was just surprised that support for LSD legalization was so low, as low as support for legalization of hard drugs.

  15. Gravatar of mikeInThe716 mikeInThe716
    17. August 2015 at 11:02

    Metal detectors have work-arounds. One that comes to mind: Most movie houses have back (fire) doors that are loosely monitored. Nutcase can hide his AKS outside such a door.

    Seriously, though, prevention of mass shooting black swans is difficult. For movie theaters, choose places where
    a) the local Concealed Carry Laws are liberal AND
    b) the theater you choose allows CC AND
    c) there is a nearby theater that explicitly PROHIBITS CC.

    You could also pack a gun yourself (legally or not – depending on your Risk Tolerance). But a,b and c above are useful in filtering the potential violent shooter away and, if that fails, deterring/slowing/stopping him in the act.

  16. Gravatar of J Mann J Mann
    17. August 2015 at 11:44

    Colin – for what it’s worth, I would avoid a tester with a metal detector because it would seem more dangerous to me. I suppose if I knew a theater to be high crime and wanted to go there anyway, I might prefer the detector, but more likely, I would find different entertainment, like going to a park or staying home with Netflix

  17. Gravatar of Ognian Davchev Ognian Davchev
    17. August 2015 at 23:12

    Scott when you say that there is no such thing as public opinion do you mean that it doesn’t exist or that it is impossible to know what that opinion is. There are elections/referendums which seem to gouge public opinion on variety of issues. There is also the proverbial wisdom of the crowds and markets. How do you distinguish between these things.

    Follow up question: do you think that democracy works? (in USA and in Switzerland for example) Do you think that ultimately policies reflect the will of the public or the will of the elites only.

    For me the two obviously are entangled and influence each other but you seem to dismiss the “will of the people”. Maybe because it is hard to find out what it is, not because it doesn’t exist/is meaningless.

  18. Gravatar of Floccina Floccina
    18. August 2015 at 08:38

    I wonder if you word the drug questions differently if you can get a higher vote.

    I do want to endorse drug use by legalizing drugs, I just want Government to say we do have the tools to combat drug use and so we are putting it beyond our jurisdiction. It is up to you the people.

    I notice that some friends seem to more concerned the legality of things than the prevalence. I bet this leads to all kinds of distortions. 2 examples: My pro-life friends fret about this law or that and ignore that the numbers or abortions have been declining. They might say “a righteous society does not allow abortion”.
    2. You can set the minimum wage to whatever you want but you really cannot make people keep the law. They might say “A righteous society does not let employers pay so low that full time workers live in poverty”.

  19. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    18. August 2015 at 09:13

    Njnnja, I love Penn and Teller.

    Ognian, I’m a huge fan of Swiss democracy. My claim is that polls don’t measure public opinion, except on the most simplistic questions, like who will you vote for. But not on public policy questions.

  20. Gravatar of Floccina Floccina
    18. August 2015 at 10:27

    Typo
    I wonder if you word the drug questions differently, if you can get a higher vote.

    I do NOT want to endorse drug use by legalizing drugs, I just want Government to say we do have the tools to combat drug use and so we are putting it beyond our jurisdiction. It is up to you the people to suppress use.

    I notice that some of my friends seem to more concerned the legality of things than the prevalence. I bet this leads to all kinds of distortions. 2 examples: My pro-life friends fret about this law or that and ignore that the numbers or abortions have been declining. They might say “a righteous society does not allow abortion”.
    2. You can set the minimum wage to whatever you want but you really cannot make people keep the law. Minimum wage supporters might say “A righteous society does not let employers pay so low that full time workers live in poverty”.

  21. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    21. August 2015 at 08:47

    Floccina, Good points

Leave a Reply