Thanks Maynard. I agree with you 100%.
From: "John M. Poythress" <brerfox(a)bellsouth.net>
Date: 2006/04/20 Thu PM 09:00:12 EDT
Subject: DNA Report
Barbara: a dynamite job!
Only concern I have: knowing your gracious sensitivity with respect to
"individual privacy" in this instance, I'll still ask if
really an issue that anyone in the study gives a hoot about? It was my
impression that each and everyone who has signed up for the program has
already signed off to the effect that the privacy of their individual
results was a matter of no consequence to them.
My observation (objective I think) is that the very point of the "study"
is for EACH to learn where he or she stood with respect to the
the odds of a MRCA at such and such interval and if I'm a mile closer
than Vern or Bud or whomever or a mile further away than any or all of
them it's irrelevant to me as a "privacy" issue. And closer or further
to whom is also a matter that the individual who signed up wants to know
about..and, for that matter, what "closer" or "further" means in the
first place. And from your comments elaborating on the study, the
variations thus far in volatile categories open the accuracy issue of
close or distant to a degree that makes it almost irrelevant
anyway..unless the numbers are a blowout one way or the other.
My point being that I don't really care about whether 11 out of 12 were
in such and such a "position" or 15 out of 24 were in such and such a
position. I think the guys who ponied up for the tests a) want to know
THEIR individual results, not some abstract
reckoning that means nothing to them. I seriously doubt that anyone is
going to take results with any degree of sensitivity anyway...the bottom
line being that EACH wants to know where HE or SHE stands relative to
whatever is supposed to be relevant..not "group" results.
Now, I know you may have a feeling that puts you in the perceived
position of hurting someone's feelings and I'm conscious of that. But
again, abstract numbers are meaningless to the testee...I'm betting not
a single one of us signed on to know in the abstract if 3 of 12 sheep
scored thus and such and 9 of 12 sheep scored this or that.
In order to make it possible for you to "carry water on both shoulders"
so to speak, I'd like to suggest a couple of alternatives:
1) each and every one of the testees on the wire who have no
privacy concerns send you an email confirming that. And if the
result is that everyone wires you then spread these
results out BY NAME in the overall report...which will allow you to send
out a "unified" report just as the one yesterday but delineated by names
(which, incidentally, will in and of itself
assist us in working on some genealogical mysteries).
2) if there is a single abstainer who wants to keep his numbers a
secret then devise some method of telling each member
how he or she stands with respect to the group numbers
(not names) and tell them so individually. I know this enormously jacks
up the job of volunteer coordinator and is an imposition on you.
However, I'm thinking that to not have individual results will have
rendered the entire exercise somewhat pointless.
Or do you have another option in mind? Many thanks.
P. S. Consider this my "public release" (if that's the term) for any and
all information resulting from the study...for starters.
==== POYTHRESS Mailing List ====
Poythress Genealogy Research Web