Generation Z is the most conservative since WW2

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790614/They-don-t-like-drugs-gay-marriage-HATE-tattoos-Generation-Z-conservative-WW2.html

Generation Z (people born after 2000) have more conservative views on gay marriage, drugs, tattoos and social norms than the two previous generations.

It's sad, but true
Liberalism is dying

Around 85 per cent of Millennials and those in Generation X had a 'quite' or 'very liberal' stance overall.

I somewhat doubt they lean either way. Teenagers below the age of 16 tend not to get involved with social/political issues.

I somewhat doubt they lean either way. Teenagers below the age of 16 tend not to get involved with social/political issues.

I agree somewhat.

However, you are ignoring the existence of conservative (or anti-Islamic) atheists; just compare Richard Dawkins to the pope, Dawkins is far more islamophobic.

Also, while the article hasn't convinced me, I do believe that "generation z" is much more conservative than other generations were when they were the same age, when it comes to many issues, such as drug use, war, islam, international cooperation, and perhaps is less open to trans-rights than the 'millenials'.

Look across the channel to France, where the proto-fascist Front National has the strongest support from the youth. There is similarly high levels of support for far-right parties all across Europe amongst the youth, not necessarily higher than other generations, but higher than the previous generations would have been at that age.

I definitely had opinions on drugs and racism etc when I was in year 7/8. Plus whenever we glanced over civil rights in America in history lessons it was obvious that racism is bad. It was the same with feudalism and the enlightenment.

I can remember being in year 9 science lesson learning about different drugs and thinking it is insane that cannabis is illegal whilst alcohol/cigs are legal. I also saw cigarettes as form of class oppression well, mega capitalists getting a load of poor people hooked on a drug that is as addictive as heroine and and will likely kill you in middle age.


Maybe I was just a bit weird.

*quotes BS Daily Mail article, wants to be taken seriously*

Claims Daily Mail article was BS without producing an argument as to why is was BS, wants to be taken seriously.

As it says clearly in the article, only 14 and 15-year-olds were surveyed.

Its a rather silly piece, as you'd expect. I wasn't impressed.

But the premise is (coincidentally) correct, imo.

Demographers often define Generation Z to be those who were born after the mid 1990s, the DM's definition is not unique. And young people certainly do hold political opinions...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790614/They-don-t-like-drugs-gay-marriage-HATE-tattoos-Generation-Z-conservative-WW2.html

Generation Z (people born after 2000) have more conservative views on gay marriage, drugs, tattoos and social norms than the two previous generations.

It's sad, but true
Liberalism is dying

Oh Christ, here we go again with the misunderstanding of statistics. And it wasn't the Daily Mail which conducted the poll.

This is a huge problem with TSR, we have GCSE commentators who have just learnt about sample sizes and source bias, and parrot it all back without any understanding.

How can a sample of only 800 or 1,200 truly reflect the opinions of 200 million Americans within a few percentage points?

Sampling methods and measures of sample reliability or precision are derived from a mathematical science called statistics. Statistics is a subject taught in colleges and some high schools. Text books on the subject are available in most libraries.

At the root of statistical reliability is probability; i.e., the odds of obtaining a particular outcome by chance alone. As an example, the chances of having a coin come up heads in a single toss is 50%. Heads is one of only two possible outcomes. The chance of getting two heads in two coin tosses is less because two heads are now only one of four possible outcomes; i.e., a head/head, head/tail, tail/head and tail/tail. As the number of coin tosses increases, it becomes increasingly more likely to get outcomes that are either very close to half heads or exactly half because, as with two coin tosses, there are more ways to get such outcomes.

Sample survey reliability works the same way -- but on a much larger scale. As in coin tosses, the most likely sample outcome is the true percentage of whatever it is we are measuring across the total population. Next most likely are outcomes very close to this true percentage. A statement of potential margin of error or sample precision reflects this and often appears in poll stories. Using a sample of 1,000 as an example, the statement could read: the chances are 95% of coming within +/- 3% of a hypothetical survey conducted among all members of the population. This means that 95% of all samples that could possibly be drawn will yield an outcome within 3 percentage points of the true percentage among the population.

Keep in mind that estimates of potential sample error always assume random samples. But even in true random samples, precision can be compromised by other factors, such as the wording of questions or the order in which questions were asked.

There is no single ideal sample size. Samples of any size have some degree of precision. The question is always whether there is sufficient precision to draw conclusions as determined by statistical formulae.