So, basically every survey has to deal with bothersome subjects, especially if it's a survey of teens or children (for different reasons).
I remember a survey given by some friends of mine for a school project; they had taught a lesson to a classroom of children and wanted to measure how much stuck. The survey answers were all on a 1-5 scale, where 1 was "I disagree strongly" and 5 was "I agree strongly."
One of the questions, put on there as a test to ensure the children understood the format, was "I eat breakfast with Martin Luther King Jr every morning." (The lesson mentioned him, among others.) They were expecting 1s, but the average answer was 2.
One of the questions, put on there as a test to ensure the children understood the format, was "I eat breakfast with Martin Luther King Jr every morning."
Some of the children probably considered a possibility of an acausal breakfast with Martin Luther King Jr. You don't have to be in the same room or in the same moment to have an acausal breakfast with someone.
The sanity waterline is already raising, and some teachers are scared... :D
How many times have you heard a claim from a somewhat reputable source like "only 28 percent of Americans are able to name one of the constitutional freedoms, yet 52 percent are able to name at least two Simpsons family members"?
Mark Liberman over at Language Log wrote up a post showing how even when such claims are based on actual studies, the methodology is biased to exaggerate ignorance:
If, every time you heard a claim of the form "Only X% of Americans know Y" you thought "there's something strange about that", then you get 1 rationality point. If you thought "I don't believe that", then you get 2 rationality points.