The results are in!
Aug. 12th, 2007 10:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thebratqueenOkay, my IBARW poll has been up for over 24 hours, so now's as good a time as any to take a look at what we've found.
Note: Obviously this is an unscientific poll which does not reflect society or fandom or the internet as a whole. Likewise, nor do any of my comments indicate die-hard conclusions. The following is offered as no more than food for thought.
And, because I am a psych geek, we're going to break tihs down. First:
I'm enough of a research geek to A) want to create a poll that would not encourage certain answers based on how the poll was worded/formated and B) realize that no LJ poll could ever really fulfill the criteria for A). But I did what I could.
Whenever possible options were alphabetized to try to remove any sense of "the norm" to a response. The exceptions were age, which went chronologically, and weight, which also went by numbers, such as it was. Also the "I make no assumption" and "Other" options were kept in the same places for consistancy. Age was also capped out at 13 for the bottom end, as 13 is the minimum age requirement for being on livejournal.
Concepts such as gender, sexuality, weight, and race are very broad and fluid, so I gave up on any idea of using terms that everyone would agree on and instead trusted those filling out the polls to define the terms for themselves. Weight was especially hard since not everyone uses BMI to rate a person's weight, and likewise not everyone has the same mental image when they hear something like "180 pounds." So with that I went for the very broad under/"normal"/over and let the respondants define for themselves what that meant. My hope/assumption here was that at the very least they'd use the same definitions when talking about themselves, so the consistancy would rest on one of the more important questions, namely do we view unknown others as basically being us?
(And of course "Normal" was put into quote marks because there are so many definitions of what a "Normal" weight is. As more than one responder said, a doctor might not rate their weight as "Normal" but they considered themselves healthy all the same.)
Racial terms were a bit of a conundrum due to how I knew I'd be getting replies from folks all over the world, and the definition of race likewise varies. I did try googling to see if I could come up with neutral and universal terms, and then gave up. I instead tried to stick with simple, hopefully non-offensive terms that at the very least got the jist across, and my apologies if any wording there turned out to be inappropriate.
There are, of course, many other things that could be asked about, such as religion, handicapped status, monetary status and so forth, but the poll was getting long enough as it was and I suspected that including more questions would take the focus away from racism. So I stuck with the above. Though I am curious about the rest, I'll admit.
Finally, the last question about describing yourself was left open due to wanting to offer some privacy for those who did not want to share every detail, and to also allow folks more freedom of expression in terms of how they wanted to be labeled. This is why the results have different wordings here and there from the original questions. Also, for the purposes of statistics I recorded some things as synonyms rather than word for word what was put. So, for example, rather than have 1 for "loves people" and 1 for "open-minded about my own sexuality" I combined them into omni-sexual. Likewise the few respondants who described themselves as various kinds of mixed-race backgrounds were combined into "Mixed." The poll and its results are open for all to see, so if anyone is curious as to the original answers they are welcome to take a look. I just felt that this way certain groups and concepts could have a better showing.
Now for some results. (As of 9:30pm Eastern, 8/12/07, which is when I'm writing this)
1) If I do not know the gender of the person I am talking to, I tend to assume they are:
Female: 71.1%
Male: 5%
Neither: 3.3%
I make no assumption: 12.6%
Other: 11.1%
As we can see, female was the overwhelming choice for otherwise unknown gender. Though as some pointed out, that was due to already knowing that the majority of people in fandom are female. Once respondants changed the context - such as specific fandoms or online hangouts - their assumption changed to male or unknown depending on experience. As we can see from those who replied to the final question, the assumptions were apparently not far off the mark:
You would describe yourself as:
Female: 93%
Male: 3.9%
No Answer (N/A): 2.8%
It is worth noting that more people were female than assumed female. Possibly this is due to a certain percentage of respondants hanging out in more mixed gender online locations, or due to folks underestimating the number of females out there, or due to the interesting issue of LJ perceptions that I'll talk about later. Or to something else entirely.
2) If I do not know the sexuality of the person I am talking to, I tend to assume they are:
Asexual: 1.9%
Bisexual: 11.1%
Heterosexual: 23.7%
Homosexual: 0%
None of the above: 1.5%
I make no assumption: 55.9%
Other: 5.9%
Here in the webiverse it would seem we are more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt about sexuality than, I daresay, most folks elsewhere would. Certainly we give it the most benefit of the doubt out of all the other categories polled. Reasons for this particular open-mindedness included, according to the comments, beliefs that everyone was bisexual in some way or another, and having enough experience with those of different sexualities to have learned not to assume at all. In other words, folks who didn't assume about sexuality online were also likely not to assume about sexuality offline either. And the final question numbers would seem to show that a lack of assumption is a good way to go:
You would describe yourself as:
Asexual: 2.8%
Bisexual: 36%
Heterosexual: 40%
Homosexual: 9%
Omnisexual: 1.7%
N/A: 10%
Though the majority of those who replied described themselves as heterosexual, self-described bisexuals made a good run for second place. So it would seem that proportionately speaking there are more non-heterosexual folks around these parts than the supposed 1 in 10 that we're told is the proportion in the world as a whole. It's also interesting to note that bisexuals came in second, given that the stereotype of bisexuals is that they don't exist. ;)
This also raises a chicken and egg sort of question: are more folks open-minded about sexuality because they themselves are non-heterosexual, or do more people feel comfortable about declaring their bisexuality because folks around here are open-minded?
3) If I do not know the age of the person I am talking to, I tend to assume they are:
13-19: 2.3%
20-29: 53.2%
30-39: 11.7%
40-49: .4%
50-59: 0%
60-69: 0%
70-79: 0%
80-89: 0%
90-99: 0%
100+: 0%
I make no assumption: 18.5%
Other: 14%
Blame it on the media or those gosh-darn kids today, but the overwhelming majority of those who responded believe that they are talking to twentysomethings. And the self-descriptions would incidate that there's a good reason for that:
You would describe yourself as:
13-19: 5.6%
20-29: 52%
30-39: 26%
40-49: 10%
50-59: 2.8%
N/A: 3.4%
Turns out, most of you are twentysomethings. So, much like with females, you're certainly playing the odds in your favor.
However, it's also worth noting that there are more folks in the 30-59 ranges than anyone would assume. So while we're not necessarily incorrect in guessing we're dealing with a 20-29er, we do seem to have a rather large blind spot (38.8% of one, to be exact) about the overall population to be found hereabouts.
Which raises the question of why do we assume younger? To me this is particularly interesting given that fandom itself is old - dating back to Star Trek: TOS - and many of us have either been in it for a while or know someone who has. So why do we not allow for a greater possibility of 30+ folks out there?
Granted, perhaps if the poll had allowed for a first choice and a second choice we would see more numbers in the older ranges. But even so, in spite of that sizable chunk, most of us (myself included) do not include 30+ in our first instinctual response.
4) If I do not know the body shape of the person I am talking to, I tend to assume they are:
Underweight: 0.4%
"Normal" weight: 49.4%
Overweight: 5.6%
I make no assumption: 41.6%
Other: 3.0%
Tighter margins here, but it would seem that most of us assume we are talking to a "normal" weighted person than one who is over or under. Now the information here is a bit tricky because some might define the norm in ways that others would define as under or over. Some might specifically call being overweight as "normal" since the media loves to tell us that more people are overweight than ever before, and thus being overweight is the norm.
But for the most part, and again I look at reflections in the self-descriptions and the comments, it seems that folks defined "normal" in a way that meant "Not skinny to the point of being boney, not carrying weight to the point that one could be called 'plump' or 'curvy'."
Of course normalcy of weight in these parts has its own issues since, as a few wisely pointed out, there is the term "fan-shaped fans." Which means that fans are known for having a shape, and said shape would easily be described by non-fans as being overweight. Is the stereotype true?
You would describe yourself as:
Underweight: 3.9%
"Normal" weight: 40%
Overweight: 46%
N/A: 10%
It's a 6% margin, but yes. More of us would describe ourselves as overweight than any other weight type. So if one were to play the odds, thinking overweight would be in your favor.
However here it would seem that we tend not to play the odds. Again it is not a huge margin, but the majority of us assumed that we were talking to folks who were "normal." So even though the stereotype is that most fans are overweight, and the majority here were overweight, we twice ignore those indicators and go for statistical option #2. Why do we do that? Why are we inclined to ignore the odds for weight, and particularly to ignore those odds in favor of a "norm" that society overall would term "better"? (Though arguably the media might say underweight was the "better" but that's another blogging week). And why do we do that for weight when we do not do it for sexuality?
5) If I do not know the race of the person I am talking to, I tend to assume they are:
Asian: 0.4%
Black: 0%
Hispanic: 0%
White: 56%
I make no assumption: 36.6%
Other: 7.1%
And here are the numbers that get us IBARW-specific. I'm sure the overwhelming choice of white surprises nobody. And, given the earlier discussion about females, you can't say that folks are necessarily wrong to play the odds here.
However what fascinates me beyond that obvious result is the lack of results in other categories. Asian had such a tiny percentage, in spite of all the Anime and manga fandoms out there? Absolutely no one assumed black, even as a token response for IBARW? (No pun intended)
And then there is "I make no assumption." Anywhere else this would raise the question of whether or not there was truly no assumption made, or if what was really meant was "White is such a default for me I don't realize that's my assumption." However this is when the comments add a new light on the subject: Here in livejournal (and blogs like it) land we have icons. We use the icons to represent ourselves and, if we use certain kinds often enough, those pictures do represent ourselves.
So here, perhaps more than anywhere else, it really is possible that someone is not considering a specific race so much as they are an actor, actress, or even a thing (as one person mentioned in the comments, some of their friends look like trees).
Now this does raise the question of whether the icons also influence the perceptions. Do we expect someone with Dean Winchester icons to be Dean-like? Someone with kitten icons to be small and cute? Does it depend on the context of the icon (e.g. personal journal vs. Role playing?) or the reason for the choice (e.g. identifying with the character vs. thinking the character/actor is attractive?)
I don't know. But it is something I'd love to chew over and ponder and even get more data on. I'm not saying the icons automatically mean that here in the webiverse we have found a way to judge people on the content of their character thanks to the miracle of 100x100 pixels. I'm just saying it adds a new dimension to the interactions, and there's not enough data to judge what those dimensions are and what they mean.
Also it's worth nothing that there were those who said that they did not work in visual mental images at all, and thus did not picture their online companions as people or even icons, but rather as concepts (like "funny" or "intelligent") or as abstract shapes, like hands typing on the keyboard.
Finally, for comparison:
You would describe yourself as:
Asian: 3.9%
Black: 3.4%
Hispanic: 2.2%
Mixed: 2.2%
Native American: 1.1%
Other: 1.7%
White: 85.4%
Again no huge shock here in the majority. The interest comes in the other numbers. There's infinitely more folks who did not describe themselves as white than anyone answering the poll assumed there would be. Owning up to some of my own prejudices, I had a moment of "Huh" when I saw the responses from Hispanics and Native Americans. I hadn't consciously realized it before, but seeing the numbers made me realize that I hadn't expected any answers at all in those categories.
And, unlike the other categories, of those who responded to the self-description answer, 100% gave an answer of some sort. In all the other categories there was always some percentage of folks who didn't put something down, but everybody laid claim to a race of some kind. Possibly this is due to being more comfortable in declaring our race than in something like weight or sexuality, possibly because this was an IBARW poll and people felt that they at least needed to answer that question to get into the spirit of things. I don't know the whys, I just know the numbers.
So what can we conclude?
There are no right or wrong answers. At least, not in terms of this poll. The point of the poll was just to find out what people did, not what they or anyone else felt they should do.
Going through the comments and looking at the numbers we find that for the most part we imagine we are talking to ourselves (and many replied with those words exactly), though we tend to skew these mirror images to be younger, thinner, and whiter than we are - or than we think of ourselves as being.
In the face of numbers, sexuality seems to be the only thing that we are open-minded about. Though we can't say what is the cause and what is the effect. If we think of race at all, we think we are talking to white people, and we ignore the possibility of other options.
We expect that we are talking to women, and it would seem that for the most part we are, but it was pointed out that we as women tend to be territorial about our online and fannish space, and thus we scare or flat-out shove men away. We ponder the question of whether men have a right to complain about this, or if women should keep defending one of the places they feel they can call their own?
Do the gender issues reflect back on race? Does our expectation of white create a "white" space? Will reminding ourselves that we are not talking to our own reflection help to do that?
As I say, there's nothing scientific here. Just numbers and food for thought. We can mix and match any aspect of this and come up with things to contemplate and question.
And, for me at least, that's what IBARW has been all about. I've read some things that I already knew, some that I didn't, some that I agreed with, some that I hated. But each little part of it gave me something different to think about, or a new way of thinking about something old, and for my own selfish needs I'd say that made it all worthwhile.
Note: Obviously this is an unscientific poll which does not reflect society or fandom or the internet as a whole. Likewise, nor do any of my comments indicate die-hard conclusions. The following is offered as no more than food for thought.
And, because I am a psych geek, we're going to break tihs down. First:
I'm enough of a research geek to A) want to create a poll that would not encourage certain answers based on how the poll was worded/formated and B) realize that no LJ poll could ever really fulfill the criteria for A). But I did what I could.
Whenever possible options were alphabetized to try to remove any sense of "the norm" to a response. The exceptions were age, which went chronologically, and weight, which also went by numbers, such as it was. Also the "I make no assumption" and "Other" options were kept in the same places for consistancy. Age was also capped out at 13 for the bottom end, as 13 is the minimum age requirement for being on livejournal.
Concepts such as gender, sexuality, weight, and race are very broad and fluid, so I gave up on any idea of using terms that everyone would agree on and instead trusted those filling out the polls to define the terms for themselves. Weight was especially hard since not everyone uses BMI to rate a person's weight, and likewise not everyone has the same mental image when they hear something like "180 pounds." So with that I went for the very broad under/"normal"/over and let the respondants define for themselves what that meant. My hope/assumption here was that at the very least they'd use the same definitions when talking about themselves, so the consistancy would rest on one of the more important questions, namely do we view unknown others as basically being us?
(And of course "Normal" was put into quote marks because there are so many definitions of what a "Normal" weight is. As more than one responder said, a doctor might not rate their weight as "Normal" but they considered themselves healthy all the same.)
Racial terms were a bit of a conundrum due to how I knew I'd be getting replies from folks all over the world, and the definition of race likewise varies. I did try googling to see if I could come up with neutral and universal terms, and then gave up. I instead tried to stick with simple, hopefully non-offensive terms that at the very least got the jist across, and my apologies if any wording there turned out to be inappropriate.
There are, of course, many other things that could be asked about, such as religion, handicapped status, monetary status and so forth, but the poll was getting long enough as it was and I suspected that including more questions would take the focus away from racism. So I stuck with the above. Though I am curious about the rest, I'll admit.
Finally, the last question about describing yourself was left open due to wanting to offer some privacy for those who did not want to share every detail, and to also allow folks more freedom of expression in terms of how they wanted to be labeled. This is why the results have different wordings here and there from the original questions. Also, for the purposes of statistics I recorded some things as synonyms rather than word for word what was put. So, for example, rather than have 1 for "loves people" and 1 for "open-minded about my own sexuality" I combined them into omni-sexual. Likewise the few respondants who described themselves as various kinds of mixed-race backgrounds were combined into "Mixed." The poll and its results are open for all to see, so if anyone is curious as to the original answers they are welcome to take a look. I just felt that this way certain groups and concepts could have a better showing.
Now for some results. (As of 9:30pm Eastern, 8/12/07, which is when I'm writing this)
1) If I do not know the gender of the person I am talking to, I tend to assume they are:
Female: 71.1%
Male: 5%
Neither: 3.3%
I make no assumption: 12.6%
Other: 11.1%
As we can see, female was the overwhelming choice for otherwise unknown gender. Though as some pointed out, that was due to already knowing that the majority of people in fandom are female. Once respondants changed the context - such as specific fandoms or online hangouts - their assumption changed to male or unknown depending on experience. As we can see from those who replied to the final question, the assumptions were apparently not far off the mark:
You would describe yourself as:
Female: 93%
Male: 3.9%
No Answer (N/A): 2.8%
It is worth noting that more people were female than assumed female. Possibly this is due to a certain percentage of respondants hanging out in more mixed gender online locations, or due to folks underestimating the number of females out there, or due to the interesting issue of LJ perceptions that I'll talk about later. Or to something else entirely.
2) If I do not know the sexuality of the person I am talking to, I tend to assume they are:
Asexual: 1.9%
Bisexual: 11.1%
Heterosexual: 23.7%
Homosexual: 0%
None of the above: 1.5%
I make no assumption: 55.9%
Other: 5.9%
Here in the webiverse it would seem we are more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt about sexuality than, I daresay, most folks elsewhere would. Certainly we give it the most benefit of the doubt out of all the other categories polled. Reasons for this particular open-mindedness included, according to the comments, beliefs that everyone was bisexual in some way or another, and having enough experience with those of different sexualities to have learned not to assume at all. In other words, folks who didn't assume about sexuality online were also likely not to assume about sexuality offline either. And the final question numbers would seem to show that a lack of assumption is a good way to go:
You would describe yourself as:
Asexual: 2.8%
Bisexual: 36%
Heterosexual: 40%
Homosexual: 9%
Omnisexual: 1.7%
N/A: 10%
Though the majority of those who replied described themselves as heterosexual, self-described bisexuals made a good run for second place. So it would seem that proportionately speaking there are more non-heterosexual folks around these parts than the supposed 1 in 10 that we're told is the proportion in the world as a whole. It's also interesting to note that bisexuals came in second, given that the stereotype of bisexuals is that they don't exist. ;)
This also raises a chicken and egg sort of question: are more folks open-minded about sexuality because they themselves are non-heterosexual, or do more people feel comfortable about declaring their bisexuality because folks around here are open-minded?
3) If I do not know the age of the person I am talking to, I tend to assume they are:
13-19: 2.3%
20-29: 53.2%
30-39: 11.7%
40-49: .4%
50-59: 0%
60-69: 0%
70-79: 0%
80-89: 0%
90-99: 0%
100+: 0%
I make no assumption: 18.5%
Other: 14%
Blame it on the media or those gosh-darn kids today, but the overwhelming majority of those who responded believe that they are talking to twentysomethings. And the self-descriptions would incidate that there's a good reason for that:
You would describe yourself as:
13-19: 5.6%
20-29: 52%
30-39: 26%
40-49: 10%
50-59: 2.8%
N/A: 3.4%
Turns out, most of you are twentysomethings. So, much like with females, you're certainly playing the odds in your favor.
However, it's also worth noting that there are more folks in the 30-59 ranges than anyone would assume. So while we're not necessarily incorrect in guessing we're dealing with a 20-29er, we do seem to have a rather large blind spot (38.8% of one, to be exact) about the overall population to be found hereabouts.
Which raises the question of why do we assume younger? To me this is particularly interesting given that fandom itself is old - dating back to Star Trek: TOS - and many of us have either been in it for a while or know someone who has. So why do we not allow for a greater possibility of 30+ folks out there?
Granted, perhaps if the poll had allowed for a first choice and a second choice we would see more numbers in the older ranges. But even so, in spite of that sizable chunk, most of us (myself included) do not include 30+ in our first instinctual response.
4) If I do not know the body shape of the person I am talking to, I tend to assume they are:
Underweight: 0.4%
"Normal" weight: 49.4%
Overweight: 5.6%
I make no assumption: 41.6%
Other: 3.0%
Tighter margins here, but it would seem that most of us assume we are talking to a "normal" weighted person than one who is over or under. Now the information here is a bit tricky because some might define the norm in ways that others would define as under or over. Some might specifically call being overweight as "normal" since the media loves to tell us that more people are overweight than ever before, and thus being overweight is the norm.
But for the most part, and again I look at reflections in the self-descriptions and the comments, it seems that folks defined "normal" in a way that meant "Not skinny to the point of being boney, not carrying weight to the point that one could be called 'plump' or 'curvy'."
Of course normalcy of weight in these parts has its own issues since, as a few wisely pointed out, there is the term "fan-shaped fans." Which means that fans are known for having a shape, and said shape would easily be described by non-fans as being overweight. Is the stereotype true?
You would describe yourself as:
Underweight: 3.9%
"Normal" weight: 40%
Overweight: 46%
N/A: 10%
It's a 6% margin, but yes. More of us would describe ourselves as overweight than any other weight type. So if one were to play the odds, thinking overweight would be in your favor.
However here it would seem that we tend not to play the odds. Again it is not a huge margin, but the majority of us assumed that we were talking to folks who were "normal." So even though the stereotype is that most fans are overweight, and the majority here were overweight, we twice ignore those indicators and go for statistical option #2. Why do we do that? Why are we inclined to ignore the odds for weight, and particularly to ignore those odds in favor of a "norm" that society overall would term "better"? (Though arguably the media might say underweight was the "better" but that's another blogging week). And why do we do that for weight when we do not do it for sexuality?
5) If I do not know the race of the person I am talking to, I tend to assume they are:
Asian: 0.4%
Black: 0%
Hispanic: 0%
White: 56%
I make no assumption: 36.6%
Other: 7.1%
And here are the numbers that get us IBARW-specific. I'm sure the overwhelming choice of white surprises nobody. And, given the earlier discussion about females, you can't say that folks are necessarily wrong to play the odds here.
However what fascinates me beyond that obvious result is the lack of results in other categories. Asian had such a tiny percentage, in spite of all the Anime and manga fandoms out there? Absolutely no one assumed black, even as a token response for IBARW? (No pun intended)
And then there is "I make no assumption." Anywhere else this would raise the question of whether or not there was truly no assumption made, or if what was really meant was "White is such a default for me I don't realize that's my assumption." However this is when the comments add a new light on the subject: Here in livejournal (and blogs like it) land we have icons. We use the icons to represent ourselves and, if we use certain kinds often enough, those pictures do represent ourselves.
So here, perhaps more than anywhere else, it really is possible that someone is not considering a specific race so much as they are an actor, actress, or even a thing (as one person mentioned in the comments, some of their friends look like trees).
Now this does raise the question of whether the icons also influence the perceptions. Do we expect someone with Dean Winchester icons to be Dean-like? Someone with kitten icons to be small and cute? Does it depend on the context of the icon (e.g. personal journal vs. Role playing?) or the reason for the choice (e.g. identifying with the character vs. thinking the character/actor is attractive?)
I don't know. But it is something I'd love to chew over and ponder and even get more data on. I'm not saying the icons automatically mean that here in the webiverse we have found a way to judge people on the content of their character thanks to the miracle of 100x100 pixels. I'm just saying it adds a new dimension to the interactions, and there's not enough data to judge what those dimensions are and what they mean.
Also it's worth nothing that there were those who said that they did not work in visual mental images at all, and thus did not picture their online companions as people or even icons, but rather as concepts (like "funny" or "intelligent") or as abstract shapes, like hands typing on the keyboard.
Finally, for comparison:
You would describe yourself as:
Asian: 3.9%
Black: 3.4%
Hispanic: 2.2%
Mixed: 2.2%
Native American: 1.1%
Other: 1.7%
White: 85.4%
Again no huge shock here in the majority. The interest comes in the other numbers. There's infinitely more folks who did not describe themselves as white than anyone answering the poll assumed there would be. Owning up to some of my own prejudices, I had a moment of "Huh" when I saw the responses from Hispanics and Native Americans. I hadn't consciously realized it before, but seeing the numbers made me realize that I hadn't expected any answers at all in those categories.
And, unlike the other categories, of those who responded to the self-description answer, 100% gave an answer of some sort. In all the other categories there was always some percentage of folks who didn't put something down, but everybody laid claim to a race of some kind. Possibly this is due to being more comfortable in declaring our race than in something like weight or sexuality, possibly because this was an IBARW poll and people felt that they at least needed to answer that question to get into the spirit of things. I don't know the whys, I just know the numbers.
So what can we conclude?
There are no right or wrong answers. At least, not in terms of this poll. The point of the poll was just to find out what people did, not what they or anyone else felt they should do.
Going through the comments and looking at the numbers we find that for the most part we imagine we are talking to ourselves (and many replied with those words exactly), though we tend to skew these mirror images to be younger, thinner, and whiter than we are - or than we think of ourselves as being.
In the face of numbers, sexuality seems to be the only thing that we are open-minded about. Though we can't say what is the cause and what is the effect. If we think of race at all, we think we are talking to white people, and we ignore the possibility of other options.
We expect that we are talking to women, and it would seem that for the most part we are, but it was pointed out that we as women tend to be territorial about our online and fannish space, and thus we scare or flat-out shove men away. We ponder the question of whether men have a right to complain about this, or if women should keep defending one of the places they feel they can call their own?
Do the gender issues reflect back on race? Does our expectation of white create a "white" space? Will reminding ourselves that we are not talking to our own reflection help to do that?
As I say, there's nothing scientific here. Just numbers and food for thought. We can mix and match any aspect of this and come up with things to contemplate and question.
And, for me at least, that's what IBARW has been all about. I've read some things that I already knew, some that I didn't, some that I agreed with, some that I hated. But each little part of it gave me something different to think about, or a new way of thinking about something old, and for my own selfish needs I'd say that made it all worthwhile.
