China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Brumby]

Now, with the above said, I've gone back to read the posts again and I'll just state that the only things I am opposed to, is the idea that we can define a pro and anti China group at present (I believe everyone exists on a continuum of pro vs anti China, in this case), and I'm also opposed to the idea that everyone in the pro China group holds the presupposition that "the SCS belongs to China and the rest of the claimants are trespassing".

If those two above ideas are not the positions held by you or anyone else then there is no disagreement.

My main interest was in establishing whether there was a dominant view rather than in grouping. The latter was meant to facilitate the discussion but if it is a hindrance I have no issue in dropping the classification altogether.

It could potentially work, but it would require a representative sample size of not only regular posters but also non posting lurkers, and the questions would have to be phrased carefully as well.
Optimally a survey would be distributed randomly to various members as well, rather than self selection which could introduce bias.

I prefer self selection because if the main objective is to determine relative views than the aim is to go for as wide as possible the population regardless of whether that population is expressive or not.

I would be interested to hear your concern about bias and how it might affect the survey in terms of representation.

 

[Brumby]

I have no idea what you're talking about here, I'm not sure which exact official view I am supposedly parroting and I'm not sure which conviction you're talking about, but I've described my position on the matter above quite succinctly.

I am not referring to you but generally anyone that holds the view that China has an indisputable claim and the other claimants are trespassing. Since that "indisputable" claim has not been outlined it would obviously be impossible to defend what is not known.

 

[Blitzo]

My main interest was in establishing whether there was a dominant view rather than in grouping. The latter was meant to facilitate the discussion but if it is a hindrance I have no issue in dropping the classification altogether.

When you say "establishing whether there is a dominant view," do you mean you're interested in establishing whether the view of "the SCS belongs to China and the rest of the claimants are trespassing" is a dominant one?
I assume that this is what you mean, in which case, I do not know.
That specific view may well make up a meaningful fraction of the views that can be held on the forum regarding the SCS dispute, but it may not be dominant, as we'd also have to define what it means to be dominant.
I.e.: if over 50% of the members believe in it, then I think it could quite convincingly be considered a dominant view, or at least a majority view. But what if the question is phrased so that we have a dozen answers of differing grades of severity (which I think should be the most accurate way to determine this, given the specific view itself is lying on a continuum), and if only say 25% of the members hold that particular view and the rest are distributed smaller among the other views, then would that 25% still be considered "dominant"? It would definitely be the largest single view held by some of the population, but I'm not sure if 25% would be dominant per se.
These are all rhetorical questions of course, but it is demonstrating my belief, that the view you're looking to establish as dominant or not, is very much on a continuous scale between two extremes -- with those extremes roughly summed up as "the islands are completely china's and everyone else has no claim" on one end, and "china has no claim on the island's at all" on the other end.
Technically we can measure a continuous variable by using labelling the two extremes on a line and asking people to draw a mark as to where their view is between those two extremes, but that still won't really answer your question, in which case maybe it can be replaced with a number of short statements from one extreme to another and for people to tick one they most agree with.... and with one of the statements (likely at one extreme position) being "the SCS belongs to China and the rest of the claimants are trespassing".

....
Or are you just asking if any dominant view on this forum exists? A stupid example off the top of my head, is if we asked everyone on the forum what 1+1 is, hopefully they'd all say 2. In which case 1+1=2 is technically a dominant view.

I prefer self selection because if the main objective is to determine relative views than the aim is to go for as wide as possible the population regardless of whether that population is expressive or not.

I would be interested to hear your concern about bias and how it might affect the survey in terms of representation.

If the goal is to determine if a dominant view exists on this forum (or indeed, any group), then any survey naturally should be representative of the population via random selection. Self selection bias may skew the results if the representative sample does not display the actual proportions of the true population.
E.g.: people more invested in the discussion at hand might be more keen to answer a hypothetical survey, while people who are lurkers may not bother with it, but the views of those lurkers are also technically part of the actual forum's position as well. If we are only interested in the views of regular posting members then it may be viable to compile a list of those members and to ask all of them to answer a survey, and maybe randomly select a sample of those members.
Of course, even random selection of individuals may be susceptible to a degree of self selection bias because people can choose not to answer a survey even if they are randomly selected from a population, but that tends to be rare I think.

 

[Brumby]

When you say "establishing whether there is a dominant view," do you mean you're interested in establishing whether the view of "the SCS belongs to China and the rest of the claimants are trespassing" is a dominant one?
I assume that this is what you mean, in which case, I do not know.

The objective is to establish whether there is a dominant view. In other words throw the dice and see where it lands. For example, I would suggest the survey to be a selection from three different views and to ask members to decide which view is closest to their personal view. Should the results be such that it is evenly distributed then there is basically no dominant view.

A suggestion would be to select a choice out of the three:
a)China has an indisputable claim over the SCS islands and the rest of the competing claimants are trespassing
b)There is a dispute over the SCS islands between competing claimants and the sovereignty issue is unresolved
c)China has no valid claim over the disputed SCS islands

Choice of wording is simply an initial suggestion subject to changes.

 

[Blitzo]

The objective is to establish whether there is a dominant view. In other words throw the dice and see where it lands. For example, I would suggest the survey to be a selection from three different views and to ask members to decide which view is closest to their personal view. Should the results be such that it is evenly distributed then there is basically no dominant view.

A suggestion would be to select a choice out of the three:
a)China has an indisputable claim over the SCS islands and the rest of the competing claimants are trespassing
b)There is a dispute over the SCS islands between competing claimants and the sovereignty issue is unresolved
c)China has no valid claim over the disputed SCS islands

Choice of wording is simply an initial suggestion subject to changes.

I see. In that case, the issue of "how much" is important in determining whether a dominant view exists (e.g.: say if 35% choose A, 40% choose B, and 25% choose C). I'm sure there are statistical tests to see if any differences are statistically relevant.

I'd also suggest that instead of three options, there maybe should be five instead, with one between a and b, and one between a and c.
Out of all these kind of "rating" opinion surveys (Likert scales) that I've studied and taken myself, there usually are at least five options so there is at least one intermediary between each of the extremes and between the neutral view.

 

[Brumby]

I see. In that case, the issue of "how much" is important in determining whether a dominant view exists (e.g.: say if 35% choose A, 40% choose B, and 25% choose C). I'm sure there are statistical tests to see if any differences are statistically relevant.

Personally I would not get too hung up over how to scientifically interpret any results. Taking your example, I would simply conclude that there is no clear dominant view.

I'd also suggest that instead of three options, there maybe should be five instead, with one between a and b, and one between a and c.
Out of all these kind of "rating" opinion surveys (Likert scales) that I've studied and taken myself, there usually are at least five options so there is at least one intermediary between each of the extremes and between the neutral view.

I am against five unless there is clear differentiation between the options. The objective is to go for simplicity rather than complexity. Please suggest how you intend to word the additional 2 options. I was thinking maybe to add a fourth option and that is :
d)No view or don't know

 

[Blitzo]

Personally I would not get too hung up over how to scientifically interpret any results. Taking your example, I would simply conclude that there is no clear dominant view.

Sure.

I am against five unless there is clear differentiation between the options. The objective is to go for simplicity rather than complexity. Please suggest how you intend to word the additional 2 options. I was thinking maybe to add a fourth option and that is :
d)No view or don't know

Creating questionnaires has to try to balance accuracy versus simplicity. The more accurate one tries to allow a person to express their view, the less simple the questionnaire will be. The more simple one tries to make a questionnaire, the less accurately a person will be able to express their view.

In this case, if I were to add two additional options between A and B and B and C, maybe I'd say something like:
between A and B: china has a strongly valid claim but a dispute also exists
between B and C: china has only a weakly valid claim and a dispute also exists
Maybe there could also be a neutral/don't know option.

However, now that I've thought about it, the researcher in me thinks the best compromise between accuracy and simplicity is probably to separate all those three statements A, B and C into their own questions, and for each to have a 1 to 5 likert rating, with 1 being strongly agree, 2 being agree, 3 being neither agree nor disagree (AKA neutral), 4 being disagree and 5 being strongly agree.
I think such a test would be most reflective of the nature of the individual statements themselves. It is slightly more complex than the three point A, B, C questionnaire but I also think it is vastly more valid.
Among the opinion surveys and psychometric tests I've run in the past, a likert rating for each question tends to be the most favoured means of evaluating views.

 

[nfgc]

I think it is a mistake to believe that there is a "pro China group" and an "anti China group".

You may refer to the groupings by any nomenclature you wish, but it is clear that there is a group of posters here who have a presupposition that the SCS belongs to China and the rest of the claimants are trespassing and that group here requires no support for its stance other than to state that the SCS belongs to China and then argue from that supposition.

When challenged they make demands of proof from others that they have never met. This does not make a strong case that those who presuppose have any basis for their position other than declaration by fiat in the absence of all else.

There's a presupposition that routinely comes from the anti-China side, that China has zero rights in the SCS that goes beyond the 200 NM from just the mainland and Hainan.

It is not that China has zero rights, but that China is asked to equally abide by the same rules as all others. In the absence of anything better, UNCLOS is the best that we have. Otherwise everyone would begin to submit archaeological data to justify their claims going back millions of years, and that enters into absurdity. This is the best we can do. The notion that China gets special dispensation because they say they have been around longer, that is not how we do it on this planet. In effect China is rejecting the international order established since 1810, and declaring 'We are older, therefore we are right." In Chinese culture that value makes sense. In the other 82% of humanity it does not.

 

[Blitzo]

You may refer to the groupings by any nomenclature you wish, but it is clear that there is a group of posters here who have a presupposition that the SCS belongs to China and the rest of the claimants are trespassing and that group here requires no support for its stance other than to state that the SCS belongs to China and then argue from that supposition.

When challenged they make demands of proof from others that they have never met. This does not make a strong case that those who presuppose have any basis for their position other than declaration by fiat in the absence of all else.

I'm not denying that such people with a particular presupposition do not exist, I was challenging the idea that they make up the dominant part of this forum, and also challenging the idea that all individuals who may be categorized as "pro China" or who identify themselves as "pro China" hold that particular presupposition.

 

[joshuatree]

It is not that China has zero rights, but that China is asked to equally abide by the same rules as all others. In the absence of anything better, UNCLOS is the best that we have. Otherwise everyone would begin to submit archaeological data to justify their claims going back millions of years, and that enters into absurdity. This is the best we can do. The notion that China gets special dispensation because they say they have been around longer, that is not how we do it on this planet. In effect China is rejecting the international order established since 1810, and declaring 'We are older, therefore we are right." In Chinese culture that value makes sense. In the other 82% of humanity it does not.

If going by UNCLOS, are other claimants being asked to abide with the same scrutiny and intensity as China? I don't have an issue with asking a claimant to abide so long as it's equally being asked of all others involved.

What is peculiar about 1810 that you would draw the starting point from there? Because the current international order actually is based more or less on the end of World War II.