AIA 2016 Meeting Vote - How Will It Turn Out?

[pgimeno]

Yeah, last year it was a serious attempt at actually sneaking it in.

This year it's only about the donors, not about getting it passed. They gave up on that after the last results. So they're going full woo.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

[qimg]http://i64.tinypic.com/2na89ra.jpg[/qimg]

Does anyone want to change their vote?

Still waiting for you to vote, FF. C'mon, help out your fellow truther (one vote at >50%). Help this poll to be a poor example of a Poisson distribution. Vote!!

 

[tinribmancer]

Still waiting for you to vote, FF. C'mon, help out your fellow truther (one vote at >50%). Help this poll to be a poor example of a Poisson distribution. Vote!!

Yankee451 didn't vote either. I thought twoofers always helped each other out?

 

[Oystein]

The reality is less impressive:

For perspective:

Today, the AE911T petition has 372 licensed architects.
Of these, about 117 are identified as AIA members.
It's likely that more are AIA members without being identified as such. It's possible that some are identified as AIA members who are no longer.
IIRC, being a licensed as an architect in the USA is a requirement for full AIA membership (as opposed to "Associate AIA").

The number of AE911T signers who are AIA members is thus most probably somewhere between 117 and 372.

I don't know the current number of architect members, but remember it used to be in the neighborhood of 85,000.

Thus, between 0.1% and 0.5% of the AIA membership has fallen for Gage's woo at some time between 2007 and now.
That's significantly more than the percentage of engineers.

 

[ozeco41]

...That's significantly more than the percentage of engineers.

I'll resist the temptation to make the obvious comment.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Thus, between 0.1% and 0.5% of the AIA membership has fallen for Gage's woo at some time between 2007 and now.
That's significantly more than the percentage of engineers.

I'll resist the temptation to make the obvious comment.

How about:

"The architects dare to dream without bound while the engineers must keep their feet on the ground"






ETA - Oystein, I'd like to tighten up the percentage in that graphic, but I'll address it in your AE petition thread

 

[DGM]

Yes they do. I doubt they will bother doing anything about it though. AE truth has fallen so far below the radar I doubt they care.

Update:



They cared................

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Update:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_170745723e27241dab.jpg[/qimg]

They cared................

I had to go back to the original to see how much they changed.

Good catch, DGM!

 

[grandmastershek]

The reality is less impressive:

[qimg]http://i1049.photobucket.com/albums/s394/jrefpicciesinnit/tinytroof_zpsmc8lapbq.jpg[/qimg]

And that's being generous. Given that they take A & E's outside the U.S., the percentage really should reflect the global percent of A & E's. You may need to use scientific notation to save space

 

[Richard the G]

3 days to go ...exciting !

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Final Poisson Fit

Based on the tally as of today, I've updated my Poisson Distribution results. Here are the final numbers (see this post for an earlier workup).

The panel estimate for Saturday's vote is around 3. While Criteria's lone vote at 50-54% appears to be absent from the Poisson fit, it did influence the results; without this lone vote, the expected percentage would peak at around 2%.

 

[Trojan]

Gage will have the votes he walks in the room with ... no more than that ...

 

[Spanx]

Good to see FF has now voted.

I'm going to wait for clarification before I vote

 

[Richard the G]

I am impressed that FF got it right, even if he voted after the AIA did.

Normally if truthers have the right information they usually don't know what to do with it.

Well done FF

 

[Oystein]

I wonder how many posts we would have seen in the days since the result was first rumoured if Gage had gotten only, say, 1% of the vote - I have a feeling that there would have been three pages from a dozend sneering debunkers. As it were, 50 of you underestimated AE911Truth by a factor of 3 or more, while Criteria overestimated by a factor of about 4.

Only 5 posters, myself included, had their guess closer to the result - I ticked "5-9%". Unfortunately, I neglected to write a comment in addition to my vote, and I may actually be kidding myself now, but my hunch was that they would improve up to double last year's vote - that would be 8%. Still wrong by a factor of 1.4, but I got the trend right, and so did heymatto70, ozeco41, Richard the G, sts60 (although sts60 commented "less than 10%")

I wonder how the 50 are going to explain their lack of foresight?
DGM ""Truthers" have done nothing over the last year that would warrant them getting more support."
cantonear1968 "Much the same result. Margin of error +/- 3 percentage points."
beachnut "Four to Six percent is a good sign that most AIA members are not insane, not paranoid on 9/11, not irrational on 9/11, not fooled by the fraud of Gage's CD claim."
Ape of Good Hope "The reality is less impressive: [Image 0.06% AE]" (didn't vote though)
Redwood "I doubt it'll get 1% of the vote."; "I'll give 3 to 1 in favor of this year's resolution failing worse than last year's."
DaveThomasNMSR "Mean = μ = 3.3889[%]"
WilliamSeger "I'm an optimist: Will anyone give me odds on an even smaller vote this year? "
pgimeno "This year it's only about the donors, not about getting it passed. They gave up on that after the last results."
Trojan "Gage will have the votes he walks in the room with ... no more than that"

 

[Dave Rogers]

I wonder how the 50 are going to explain their lack of foresight?

Misplaced faith in humanity. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

Only 5 posters, myself included, had their guess closer to the result - I ticked "5-9%". Unfortunately, I neglected to write a comment in addition to my vote, and I may actually be kidding myself now, but my hunch was that they would improve up to double last year's vote - that would be 8%. Still wrong by a factor of 1.4, but I got the trend right, and so did heymatto70, ozeco41, Richard the G, sts60 (although sts60 commented "less than 10%")

I wonder how the 50 are going to explain their lack of foresight?
DGM ""Truthers" have done nothing over the last year that would warrant them getting more support."
cantonear1968 "Much the same result. Margin of error +/- 3 percentage points."
beachnut "Four to Six percent is a good sign that most AIA members are not insane, not paranoid on 9/11, not irrational on 9/11, not fooled by the fraud of Gage's CD claim."
Ape of Good Hope "The reality is less impressive: [Image 0.06% AE]" (didn't vote though)
Redwood "I doubt it'll get 1% of the vote."; "I'll give 3 to 1 in favor of this year's resolution failing worse than last year's."
DaveThomasNMSR "Mean = μ = 3.3889[%]"
WilliamSeger "I'm an optimist: Will anyone give me odds on an even smaller vote this year? "
pgimeno "This year it's only about the donors, not about getting it passed. They gave up on that after the last results."
Trojan "Gage will have the votes he walks in the room with ... no more than that"

lol, did anyone think it was science, a vote on human nature and the variables of a vote by AIA members. How many attending were eligible to vote, how many failed to show up.

Guessing the vote outcome... Is it possible Gage made sure his followers showed up to vote?

I expected AIA members could see the fraud - I now assume based on my hope AIA members can't be that stupid - Richard Gage the Liar stacked the deck, got his delusional followers to vote.

 

[Oystein]

beachy, I am sure you have at least some prima facie evidence that Gage stacked the voters?

Then you can probably explain how it is done?

The AIA Business Meeting is an event where delegates vote: Each AIA Chapter (however they are organized, some regional, some local) gets a number of votes according to the number of members they represent; the Chapters send delegates to the Business Meeting. The delegates allot the Chapter's votes. It's up to the Chapters to decide who their delgates are, and how these delegated are authorized to vote.

So if AE911Truth managed to stack the vote, the most plausible route would be to go to the Chapters and persuade, or majoritize, them into voting for woo.

This then might be the route at which debunking would have to be directed.
This would require orginazation.

 

[Oystein]

I think we must face a sad reality: That well-organized and well-presented woo can persuade significant percentages of a casual public, even among academics of a somewhat relevant profession, in this day and age.

Isn't that what the JREF and the ISF are ultimately all about? Educating a public about the folly of woo?

 

[LSSBB]

I think we must face a sad reality: That well-organized and well-presented woo can persuade significant percentages of a casual public, even among academics of a somewhat relevant profession, in this day and age.

Isn't that what the JREF and the ISF are ultimately all about? Educating a public about the folly of woo?

With time, more young folks weaned on YouTube make it into all professions. In the meantime, critical thinking skills still are not taught on a wide scale.