Study: What Kind of Voter Is Most Susceptible When Pols Pile It High and Deep?

[Kinser79]

(05-21-2016, 11:37 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-20-2016, 10:04 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: So you don't like the consequences of successful research? So long as the research doesn't have amoral methods it is OK.

He doesn't like the results so he's trying to rationalize why the results don't matter.

(05-21-2016, 11:43 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-20-2016, 09:25 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not at all.  There seems to be no limit to what universities will waste money on these days.  I'm just saying that it doesn't mean a thing unless they have a relatively diverse sample size that is at least 10 times larger.  One has to account for drawing a couple dozen incredibly stupid people in survey style 'experiments' of this nature.  Surely you can see that having just 10 such persons can swing the findings in a wrong direction far more than a standard deviation.

You think preliminary studies are a waste of money? REALLY??? The opposite is true, they are done because the folks giving out research grants want to see if paying for a full study is worthwhile and not just a waste of money. These smaller studies are done exactly because money is tight, not because there is a lot of money to waste.

Seems someone doesn't understand English as well as statistics.

The fact of the matter is that if they wanted a preliminary study then they should have actually conducted a preliminary study that could give them remotely accurate results--which would require a sample size that ten retards couldn't throw off by a standard deviation. Which is how actual science is done. But since this is a social science which is neither social nor science I don't really think it matters.

As for wasting money, conducting a smaller study that gives inaccurate results is precisely wasting money.