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

[Kinser79]

(05-21-2016, 06:32 PM)TnT Wrote:

(05-21-2016, 12:19 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: 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.

Actually, if one truly understands statistics, it turns out that obtaining a good sample is probably the most difficult task.  If the sample truly represents the data points being studied, then 196 could very well be enough for useful information.  Clearly there are a lot of thngs to worry about in a statistical study - the SIZE of the sample is one of those, but certainly not the most worrisome.

Besides, especially given the fact that in our society we have lots of Republicans, it might well be a legitimate finding to have "ten retards" or more in the sample.

If you go through the abstract the sample isn't very good either, only 42% were women and they also didn't break the sample down by race either.