With all the territory covered by this article, it seems like the discussion thus far has weighed heavily in favor of MLP and bronies, to the detriment of other aspects of the survey that would make worthwhile discussion topics. I suspect that's due in large part to the choice of title for the article.
On several of the other questions, where comparisons are made between furries and non-furries, I would like to see the demographic breakdown of the comparison. My concern has to do with the fact that the majority of furries are in the 18-29 age range, whereas I'm guessing the non-furry numbers reflect a wider distribution across multiple age ranges. We are told, for instance, that furries are more liberal, more likely to be atheist, and higher on the Kinsey scale, than non-furries. But to my admittedly non-scientific observation, this seems to be true in general among 18-29 year-olds, and if the non-furry numbers encompass a larger number of older age groups, the comparison loses validity. In other words, show us how 18-29 year old furries compare to 18-29 year old non-furries (and likewise for other age groups), or at least take into account any differences in the age demographics of the two groups and adjust the weight of the age groups to achieve some sort of "demographic parity".
With all the territory covered by this article, it seems like the discussion thus far has weighed heavily in favor of MLP and bronies, to the detriment of other aspects of the survey that would make worthwhile discussion topics. I suspect that's due in large part to the choice of title for the article.
On several of the other questions, where comparisons are made between furries and non-furries, I would like to see the demographic breakdown of the comparison. My concern has to do with the fact that the majority of furries are in the 18-29 age range, whereas I'm guessing the non-furry numbers reflect a wider distribution across multiple age ranges. We are told, for instance, that furries are more liberal, more likely to be atheist, and higher on the Kinsey scale, than non-furries. But to my admittedly non-scientific observation, this seems to be true in general among 18-29 year-olds, and if the non-furry numbers encompass a larger number of older age groups, the comparison loses validity. In other words, show us how 18-29 year old furries compare to 18-29 year old non-furries (and likewise for other age groups), or at least take into account any differences in the age demographics of the two groups and adjust the weight of the age groups to achieve some sort of "demographic parity".