A while ago I put up a posting on being wary of polls and statistics. That should also have included being wary of studies. When an article starts out "studies say" liberally sprinkle your credulity with skepticism.
For years now the medical research community has been railing away about the evils of caffeine. They have also been warning us about the possible causative relationship of caffeine and cancer. And then the tide sort of started turning. And some studies showed that there was no or little causative relationship. And some studies said there never had been. Yes indeed, "some studies."
Today our local paper reprinted an article written by Linda Searing of The Washington Post. She writes a series entitled "Quick Study," in which she gives just the bare bone facts about various health studies. Bare bones is truly an understatement. There would seem to be a truly positive side to her reporting, if only we had more of the facts.
The headline was "Coffee, tea not linked to breast cancer." This title was printed in inch-high letters. No way that readers were going to miss this. And some readers, working on the assumption that newspapers can't/don't print lies aren't going to read any further than the headline for the article. And they will now be convinced that they know all they need to know. But will those readers who read the whole article have any better information?
Let me reprint for you here the entire article so you can see why I am sometimes such a skeptic.
Linda Searing
The Washington Post
THE QUESTION
Does drinking coffee or tea affect the likelihood that a woman will develop breast cancer?
THE STUDY
This study analyzed data on 85,987 cancer-free women who, on average, were in their mid-40s at the start of the study. In a 22-year span, 5,272 of them were diagnosed with breast cancer.
Women who reported drinking the most tea or coffee (four or more cups a day, caffeinated or decaffeinated) had no greater or less risk of developing breast cancer than those who drank virutally no coffee or tea.
Also, no association was found between consumption of caffeinated sodas or chocolate (which contains caffeine) and the risk for breast cancer.
WHO'S AFFECTED?
Women. U.S. women face a one-in-eight chance of developing breast cancer.
CAVEATS
The authors wrote that further study was needed on the possibility that caffeine "may modestly reduce risk of post-menopausal breast cancer."
TO KNOW MORE
Find this study in the May issue of the International Journal of Cancer.
Got to love Searing's reference to "This study," especially since she never names the study. She says that "the authors wrote," but she doesn't name the authors either. She says the study covered a"22-year-span" but doesn't give the calendar years for the study. She sends us to "the May issue" but there is more than one issue in May.
Then there is her "one-in-eight chance of developing breast cancer" statement. According to whom? Where did she get this number from? She never tells us that either. Go to the figures she does present us with and you will see that 5,272 of the 85,987 of the women involved in the study got breast cancer. I'm not a mathematician but 1/8 of the women in this study should be around 10,748 women. The study, or at least the figures that Searing gave us, shows that far fewer women got cancer than the one-in-eight figure she gives us. The study is showing us a one-in-seventeen chance, a huge difference.
Then there is her use of the word "caveats." A caveat, singular, is "a warning or caution; admonition; qualification." A caveat tells us to be ware in how we look at information just presented to us. Normally we use the word to tell readers that what they are reading may have a problem, that they should take what was read with a grain of salt. First, she doesn't give us "caveats"--her word, plural, but one single caveat. Next, she is not warning or cautioning us about anything that she has said before. She brings up something totally new. She tells us that further study will be needed on whether or not caffeine "may modestly reduce risk of post-menopausal breast cancer." "Clearly," and there is nothing clear about it, something in the study she mentions must have pointed to a possibility of caffeine as a risk reducer. And if it is, that is a highly positive thing, and doesn't need a "caveat."
The Washington Post is supposed to be a "respectable" newspaper, with high journalistic standards. And yet there is Searing's little piece. What is respectable about a piece that makes a loudly definitive statement and then backs up that statement with almost no information?
We get information from a lot of different sources. One thing we need to do carefully is evaluate that information. I guarantee you that there are thousands of people out there, perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, who are going to joyfully return to caffeinated drinks, all on the basis of Searing's article's appearing in papers around the country. It is possible that the headline is correct, and we can rejoice in one less thing that causes breast cancer. And it is entirely possible that the headline is not correct.
Would you base your caffeine intake on what you read in the article?
Showing posts with label studies/polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label studies/polls. Show all posts
Monday, June 30, 2008
Friday, June 13, 2008
Some Thoughts on Polls
Every day, sometimes many times a day, the results of new polls are announced somewhere. The results may be broadcast on television or radio; they may be printed in newspapers, general circulation magazines, or scholarly journals. They may appear on any number of different types of Internet venues. You may hear about the results in a classroom or around the water cooler during a coffee break at work. Friends may call and tell you about the results; strangers may volunteer the results as you find yourselves together in some place. Somehow the information gets "out there." And depending on your time, inclination, interest, and education you may become part of the chain that passes on the poll results.
As Joel Best has pointed out in his work Damned Lies and Statistics, the American people have a fascination with statistics--"I count therefore I am." We use statistics to validate our way of thinking, of acting. We work as if the numbers that bombard us have objective rationality. Do they?
I put up two polls on medical practitioners and sex. One poll was for women, one for men. Each poll gave five statements and asked respondents to check off those statements that applied to them. In the poll introduction I mentioned that everyone should be able to check off three of the five statements. No further instructions were given.
The results of that poll are out there for everyone to see. But what are we really seeing? How valid or how valuable are the results for the two polls? What use can we make of the resulting data?
It's time for true confessions, so let me say that I knew from the outset that the polls I put up were problematic. I actually counted on that fact. I had ulterior motives from the start. Why? Because I was trying to make a point and get us to think.
Polls have become a ubiquitous part of our lives, and yet we know so little about the process of polling and of the possible manipulation inherent in polls. We assume that because a poll is an open process that we know all we need to know about the poll.
1) All polls are flawed to one degree or another. Where the flaw(s) appear can greatly influence how useful the poll will be.
2) Pollster intent can influence the poll right from the start, can "rig" the results before a single question is answered. If a pollster is set on proving that what they believe is true is indeed true, they can design a poll that will show they are right. Or that will show that someone else is wrong. This is one reason why there can be many polls out there on the same topic that point to radically different results.
3) Questions are not neutral. First, how they are worded can influence or force a particular answer. Second, one question can influence how you will answer subsequent questions. The order that questions appear in can also influence reader response. (The classic example is the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.)
4) How a poll is taken can influence the results. Is the poll taken face to face with the pollster? Do you know the pollster? Does the pollster know you? Is the poll mailed to you for you to fill out? Is the poll on the Internet? Is the poll taken on the street between an unknown pollster and an unknown poll taker?
5) People lie. There is no way for a pollster to know if people are answering what they really believe to be true or if they are answering what they would like to be true or think should be true. In face to face situations there is the element added of not wanting to be thought of as radically different from others, or of making pronouncements that are not thought well of in society today. Example: how many people, in a face to face poll would answer the question "Do you believe that you have racist tendencies?" with "Yes"? They might, however, answer the question "Do you believe that there are people in society with racist tendencies?" with "Yes." Put those questions into an anonymous poll and you might or might not get different answers.
Even innocuous questions are not always answered truthfully. If you are asked to fill in your age, height, weight, occupation and last year of schooling the chances are excellent that the answers to those will be fudged. After all, who will really know the difference? Why not make yourself a bit more "perfect"? Even asking if someone is male or female does not guarantee that the answers will be truthful. Case in point: in the polls I put up there are actually two polls--one for males and one for females. How could I, as pollster, know that it was indeed only females who answered the female questions and only males that answered the male questions? And since there are two polls, how could I as pollster know whether one person voted in both polls?
6) People misunderstand the questions being asked. They may read the question one way while the "real" question is quite different. They answer on the basis of their understanding, which may be incomplete or inaccurate.
7) People may have views that are not represented by the questions asked. They may be willing to answer yes to a question but only with a caveat or under special circumstances (note the comments on the announcement of the polls that said just this), but because there is no way on the poll to qualify the answer, they may pick an answer even though it does not fully represent what they believe. And this means that those taking a poll may answer what are two related questions in diametrically opposing ways.(See the first and last questions on my poll for an example.) And it also means that the numbers that accrue may or may not be representative of the audience being polled.
8) Polls are self-limiting. There may be formatting issues in putting out a poll that limit what can be asked and how. What could be crucial information is not gathered. The polls I put up were limited to five statements to respond to--blogger has a physical limitation of five questions. Even if I wanted to I could not ask more questions that might give me better responses or more detailed responses.
9) How representative or random is a sample? I have almost no information on the readers of this blog. I do not know what segments of the population they come from. I do not know how many from various segments of the population there are. I do not know ages, religious orientation, economic level or any of thousands of things that could influence the answers to a poll or how the poll results could be used.
10) The results of a poll will change depending on whether or not those being polled already know what others have answered. We may be influenced by the answers already given by others. Others who glanced at the poll results may not have noticed that some answers were changed as the poll progressed. Blogger allows you to go back and change your vote. It is possible that some people gave more thought to the statements and went back to change their vote. It is also quite possible that some people changed their vote after seeing how others voted. The very openness of the poll can work to skew results.
There are other factors which can influence polls at all points in the polling process. On this blog the voting is open for everyone to see. As pollster, I cannot remove any votes that I don't agree with--blogger doesn't let me do so. But when polls are taken in other formats, how do we know that the total numbers being reported are true? How do we know that all data is being reported? How do we know that numbers haven't been changed? What is the actual margin for error that a pollster is working with? Can that margin make a real difference in the numbers reported?
In short, all that I, as pollster, can actually say about the two polls taken is that in a given time period a group of people checked off the answers shown on the poll results. How representative that poll is cannot be known. How accurate the results are also cannot be known. I cannot make any pronouncements that "males feel this way" or that "females feel this way." I cannot quantify frum opinion on the subject polled about.
Then why all the rigmarole involved in asking the questions and putting up the poll to begin with? Because every day you will be faced with the results of polls "out there." Because every day you may/will be asked to make decisions based on the results of polls. Because every day someone will tell you the "truth" about how people act/feel/think based on poll results. Because though the polls on this blog may be dismissed by you as being "only a blog poll," those other polls out there may not be any more accurate or any more useful.
Because we all need to be painfully aware that numbers can lie. We need to understand that statistics can be made to say whatever someone wants those statistics to say. We need to learn to view numbers with a bit more of a jaundiced eye. When it comes to polls and the statistics that result from them, let the buyer be ware.
Nonetheless, I found it very interesting that of the 80 "votes" cast, only 12 out of the 28 males and only 29 out of the 52 females indicated that in an emergency they would use a medical practitioner of either sex. I'm truly puzzled trying to envision an emergency scene where the person having the emergency puts up a hand and calls a timeout until a medical practitioner of the "correct" sex can be found.
As Joel Best has pointed out in his work Damned Lies and Statistics, the American people have a fascination with statistics--"I count therefore I am." We use statistics to validate our way of thinking, of acting. We work as if the numbers that bombard us have objective rationality. Do they?
I put up two polls on medical practitioners and sex. One poll was for women, one for men. Each poll gave five statements and asked respondents to check off those statements that applied to them. In the poll introduction I mentioned that everyone should be able to check off three of the five statements. No further instructions were given.
The results of that poll are out there for everyone to see. But what are we really seeing? How valid or how valuable are the results for the two polls? What use can we make of the resulting data?
It's time for true confessions, so let me say that I knew from the outset that the polls I put up were problematic. I actually counted on that fact. I had ulterior motives from the start. Why? Because I was trying to make a point and get us to think.
Polls have become a ubiquitous part of our lives, and yet we know so little about the process of polling and of the possible manipulation inherent in polls. We assume that because a poll is an open process that we know all we need to know about the poll.
1) All polls are flawed to one degree or another. Where the flaw(s) appear can greatly influence how useful the poll will be.
2) Pollster intent can influence the poll right from the start, can "rig" the results before a single question is answered. If a pollster is set on proving that what they believe is true is indeed true, they can design a poll that will show they are right. Or that will show that someone else is wrong. This is one reason why there can be many polls out there on the same topic that point to radically different results.
3) Questions are not neutral. First, how they are worded can influence or force a particular answer. Second, one question can influence how you will answer subsequent questions. The order that questions appear in can also influence reader response. (The classic example is the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.)
4) How a poll is taken can influence the results. Is the poll taken face to face with the pollster? Do you know the pollster? Does the pollster know you? Is the poll mailed to you for you to fill out? Is the poll on the Internet? Is the poll taken on the street between an unknown pollster and an unknown poll taker?
5) People lie. There is no way for a pollster to know if people are answering what they really believe to be true or if they are answering what they would like to be true or think should be true. In face to face situations there is the element added of not wanting to be thought of as radically different from others, or of making pronouncements that are not thought well of in society today. Example: how many people, in a face to face poll would answer the question "Do you believe that you have racist tendencies?" with "Yes"? They might, however, answer the question "Do you believe that there are people in society with racist tendencies?" with "Yes." Put those questions into an anonymous poll and you might or might not get different answers.
Even innocuous questions are not always answered truthfully. If you are asked to fill in your age, height, weight, occupation and last year of schooling the chances are excellent that the answers to those will be fudged. After all, who will really know the difference? Why not make yourself a bit more "perfect"? Even asking if someone is male or female does not guarantee that the answers will be truthful. Case in point: in the polls I put up there are actually two polls--one for males and one for females. How could I, as pollster, know that it was indeed only females who answered the female questions and only males that answered the male questions? And since there are two polls, how could I as pollster know whether one person voted in both polls?
6) People misunderstand the questions being asked. They may read the question one way while the "real" question is quite different. They answer on the basis of their understanding, which may be incomplete or inaccurate.
7) People may have views that are not represented by the questions asked. They may be willing to answer yes to a question but only with a caveat or under special circumstances (note the comments on the announcement of the polls that said just this), but because there is no way on the poll to qualify the answer, they may pick an answer even though it does not fully represent what they believe. And this means that those taking a poll may answer what are two related questions in diametrically opposing ways.(See the first and last questions on my poll for an example.) And it also means that the numbers that accrue may or may not be representative of the audience being polled.
8) Polls are self-limiting. There may be formatting issues in putting out a poll that limit what can be asked and how. What could be crucial information is not gathered. The polls I put up were limited to five statements to respond to--blogger has a physical limitation of five questions. Even if I wanted to I could not ask more questions that might give me better responses or more detailed responses.
9) How representative or random is a sample? I have almost no information on the readers of this blog. I do not know what segments of the population they come from. I do not know how many from various segments of the population there are. I do not know ages, religious orientation, economic level or any of thousands of things that could influence the answers to a poll or how the poll results could be used.
10) The results of a poll will change depending on whether or not those being polled already know what others have answered. We may be influenced by the answers already given by others. Others who glanced at the poll results may not have noticed that some answers were changed as the poll progressed. Blogger allows you to go back and change your vote. It is possible that some people gave more thought to the statements and went back to change their vote. It is also quite possible that some people changed their vote after seeing how others voted. The very openness of the poll can work to skew results.
There are other factors which can influence polls at all points in the polling process. On this blog the voting is open for everyone to see. As pollster, I cannot remove any votes that I don't agree with--blogger doesn't let me do so. But when polls are taken in other formats, how do we know that the total numbers being reported are true? How do we know that all data is being reported? How do we know that numbers haven't been changed? What is the actual margin for error that a pollster is working with? Can that margin make a real difference in the numbers reported?
In short, all that I, as pollster, can actually say about the two polls taken is that in a given time period a group of people checked off the answers shown on the poll results. How representative that poll is cannot be known. How accurate the results are also cannot be known. I cannot make any pronouncements that "males feel this way" or that "females feel this way." I cannot quantify frum opinion on the subject polled about.
Then why all the rigmarole involved in asking the questions and putting up the poll to begin with? Because every day you will be faced with the results of polls "out there." Because every day you may/will be asked to make decisions based on the results of polls. Because every day someone will tell you the "truth" about how people act/feel/think based on poll results. Because though the polls on this blog may be dismissed by you as being "only a blog poll," those other polls out there may not be any more accurate or any more useful.
Because we all need to be painfully aware that numbers can lie. We need to understand that statistics can be made to say whatever someone wants those statistics to say. We need to learn to view numbers with a bit more of a jaundiced eye. When it comes to polls and the statistics that result from them, let the buyer be ware.
Nonetheless, I found it very interesting that of the 80 "votes" cast, only 12 out of the 28 males and only 29 out of the 52 females indicated that in an emergency they would use a medical practitioner of either sex. I'm truly puzzled trying to envision an emergency scene where the person having the emergency puts up a hand and calls a timeout until a medical practitioner of the "correct" sex can be found.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
A New Poll
A recent comment fired up my curiosity. I've put up a new poll on medical practitioners and sex. There are separate polls for male and female readers of the blog. Please scroll down below to access the polls. You may answer more than one question. In fact, there are three questions that everyone should be able to answer.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
The More Things Change...
I'm going to admit to something: I was running an experiment, a sociological one, when I put up the last posting. I knew when I put up the "New York the Center of the World...Not" post precisely what kinds of responses were going to be made--I was hoping to be proven wrong; I wasn't. Yes, I was truly giving what seems like a sensible alternative for those who are suffering financially and for those whose "desired" neighborhoods are reaching or have reached the point of not being able to accommodate anyone else. But "sensible" and Klal don't seem to want to be introduced to each other, nor is this something new, unfortunately.
We are always talking about how we have rebuilt the glory of Yiddishkeit that was Europe pre-WW II. Well, I will grant you that we have rebuilt pre-war Yiddishkeit. That was the Europe in which East was East and West was West and never the twain would meet. That was the Europe where those living in town X looked with disfavor and distrust on those living in town Y. That was the Europe where those living in area X "knew for a fact" that those living in area Y were not the "right" kind of frumkeit. That was the Europe that fostered the attitude of "My rebbe/rabbi is better than your rebbe/rabbi, my way of practicing Yiddishkeit is better than yours." That was the Europe where indifference to those from elsewhere in Europe blossomed. That was the Europe that introduced the schism of the Haskala movement. That was the Europe that, because it couldn't be unified in the good times, couldn't unify in the bad times either.
The comments here and on similar postings on other blogs show that the lessons of Europe are alive and well here. Talk about "out of town," whatever that is, and we start talking about "yenem"--about "them," as if "they" are not us and never can be. Loyalty to place supersedes loyalty to the idea of a unified Klal. I don't exempt myself from this either. But Yiddishkeit as we are still practicing it today requires us to "take sides," as if there were a war going on. And in one sense there is: the war for final supremacy as the "chosen" of Klal.
I'm not the only one to see this; we all have. Rabbis from one group frequently attack rabbis from a different group. Rabbi X says M so rabbi Y says Q. Yeshiva W looks down its nose at Yeshiva R. Town B looks askance at Town F.
We aren't one unified Klal Yisroel, but then when have we been? We are like a group of fractious children all wanting to claim the title of "Daddy's favorite." It is axiomatic for parents that they should love their children all the same. It is the children who don't manage to do that with each other.
Moving away from places like Brooklyn should not be looked at equivalent to being sent to the moon. Those are our sisters and brothers "out there." It's more than time that we started acting like a loving family. Moving out of town should be just going to live with our family. It is not, no NOT places that should be important--it should be people.
"Let them come here," I am going to hear from someone. And thus the battle will continue,
a battle where there is going to be no winner and a lot of losers.
We are always talking about how we have rebuilt the glory of Yiddishkeit that was Europe pre-WW II. Well, I will grant you that we have rebuilt pre-war Yiddishkeit. That was the Europe in which East was East and West was West and never the twain would meet. That was the Europe where those living in town X looked with disfavor and distrust on those living in town Y. That was the Europe where those living in area X "knew for a fact" that those living in area Y were not the "right" kind of frumkeit. That was the Europe that fostered the attitude of "My rebbe/rabbi is better than your rebbe/rabbi, my way of practicing Yiddishkeit is better than yours." That was the Europe where indifference to those from elsewhere in Europe blossomed. That was the Europe that introduced the schism of the Haskala movement. That was the Europe that, because it couldn't be unified in the good times, couldn't unify in the bad times either.
The comments here and on similar postings on other blogs show that the lessons of Europe are alive and well here. Talk about "out of town," whatever that is, and we start talking about "yenem"--about "them," as if "they" are not us and never can be. Loyalty to place supersedes loyalty to the idea of a unified Klal. I don't exempt myself from this either. But Yiddishkeit as we are still practicing it today requires us to "take sides," as if there were a war going on. And in one sense there is: the war for final supremacy as the "chosen" of Klal.
I'm not the only one to see this; we all have. Rabbis from one group frequently attack rabbis from a different group. Rabbi X says M so rabbi Y says Q. Yeshiva W looks down its nose at Yeshiva R. Town B looks askance at Town F.
We aren't one unified Klal Yisroel, but then when have we been? We are like a group of fractious children all wanting to claim the title of "Daddy's favorite." It is axiomatic for parents that they should love their children all the same. It is the children who don't manage to do that with each other.
Moving away from places like Brooklyn should not be looked at equivalent to being sent to the moon. Those are our sisters and brothers "out there." It's more than time that we started acting like a loving family. Moving out of town should be just going to live with our family. It is not, no NOT places that should be important--it should be people.
"Let them come here," I am going to hear from someone. And thus the battle will continue,
a battle where there is going to be no winner and a lot of losers.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
The Results of the Last Poll
I warn my students that statistics can be skewed to mean anything that someone wants them to mean. The numbers aren't lying; the people using those numbers may be being creative. Therefore, I'm going to be very conservative in discussing the results of the poll on banning or keeping sheitlach as a hair covering.
40 people voted in the poll. The results are as follows:
I am a man and I say ban the sheitles
4 (10%)
I am a man and say don't ban the sheitles
8 (20%)
I am a woman and say ban the shaitles
2 (5%)
I am a woman and say don't ban the sheitles
26 (65%)
More than twice as many women voted as did men. This does not say anything about the importance of the issue to the sexes per se but may give an idea of the demographics of the readers of this blog. We could also posit that this issue is of more importance to women then it is to men. 34 of those voting said not to ban sheitles; 6 said to ban them. That's 85% for shaitlach and only 15% against. What we can say is that those voting are overwhelmingly in favor of allowing sheitles as a hair covering for women.
40 people voted in the poll. The results are as follows:
I am a man and I say ban the sheitles
4 (10%)
I am a man and say don't ban the sheitles
8 (20%)
I am a woman and say ban the shaitles
2 (5%)
I am a woman and say don't ban the sheitles
26 (65%)
More than twice as many women voted as did men. This does not say anything about the importance of the issue to the sexes per se but may give an idea of the demographics of the readers of this blog. We could also posit that this issue is of more importance to women then it is to men. 34 of those voting said not to ban sheitles; 6 said to ban them. That's 85% for shaitlach and only 15% against. What we can say is that those voting are overwhelmingly in favor of allowing sheitles as a hair covering for women.
Can we apply the numbers from the poll to the larger frum population? Maybe yes and maybe no. To be more accurate in using the numbers we would need to know which "groups" of frum people were voting here. Is it all MO? Is it a mix of MO and yeshivish? I suspect, given the people who comment here, that we have a mix of various frum types voting.
So what can these polling numbers tell us? I believe that we can say that any unilateral attempt by any rabbanim to ban sheitlach would not be successful. I believe that those who have to wear shaitlach are not so easily going to be convinced not to wear them. I believe that any man considering a shaitle ban needs to look at the women and how likely they are to comply with such a ban. I don't believe that there would be 100% compliance, or anything near 100%. If not everyone will hold with the ban then what greater problems might be created? What divides are going to be created that could be problematic for frum Klal? If a ban were to go into affect I suspect that some women would refuse to cover their hair at all, a problem that surely does not need to be created.
Even though fewer men voted than women did, the men voted 2 to 1 in favor of keeping the shaitlach. I also suspect that if this poll were extended to get a larger sampling, that larger sampling would pretty much fall along the lines seen in this poll. I say so because among a group of 37 male students whom I informally polled, and who would break down as about 30% MO and the rest in the various yeshivish designations, only 8 came out in favor of banning shailach.
As I said when introducing the poll, we were not going to be arguing interpretation of halacha as it applies to hair covering. Those voting were being asked to say how they would hold with shaitles as a hair covering.
In the final analysis, I believe that this poll indicates that anyone who is seriously considering a ban on shaitles needs to proceed very, very slowly, if at all. I think that there are other battles they could be fighting with a better chance of winning. Picking shaitles to cause a fight over is not a winning proposition.
Monday, February 4, 2008
The Latest Poll--Hair Coverings
The brouhaha over the wig store in Flatbush vs. Yeshiva Chaim Berlin has an element that goes beyond the factual matters of the case. Many commenters across the blogosphere have expressed highly negative opinions about the sheitles and falls worn by married women to cover their hair. There have been calls to ban sheitles outright. Some commenters have come out in favor of the sheitles.
Which is it for you--ban the sheitles or allow them? Please scroll down and vote below.
Which is it for you--ban the sheitles or allow them? Please scroll down and vote below.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The Newest Poll--The Ideal Age to look to Get Married
Is there an ideal or perfect age to get married? Our society seems to think so, given when boys and girls enter the shidduch parsha. What do you think? There are separate polls below, one for girls' ages and one for boys' ages. Feel free to vote in both polls.
Note and thanks to "G": Clearly the "ideal" age is whenever you actually find your bashert and get married. However, we all start looking at particular ages. Presumably, if we found our mates quickly, we'd be marrying at the age we started looking. So let's amend the focus of the poll a bit. What is the ideal age to begin looking to get married.
Note and thanks to "G": Clearly the "ideal" age is whenever you actually find your bashert and get married. However, we all start looking at particular ages. Presumably, if we found our mates quickly, we'd be marrying at the age we started looking. So let's amend the focus of the poll a bit. What is the ideal age to begin looking to get married.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)