Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Study: What Kind of Voter Is Most Susceptible When Pols Pile It High and Deep?
#21
(05-20-2016, 09:25 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(05-20-2016, 04:23 PM)Odin Wrote:
(05-20-2016, 08:53 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: A sample size of 196 is not indicative of anything.  The size of the sample is far too small.  They may have only found a couple dozen extremely stupid people.  This needs to be replicated with a much larger sample size.

Are you implying it won't? Often a smaller study is done to see if a full study is worth doing.

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.

Professors operate under the dictum "Publish or perish".  They have good cause to do research, and just about anything that has some plausibility will be studied.

So you don't like the consequences of successful research? So long as the research doesn't have amoral methods it is OK.

Universities aren't solely places of teaching. Research is part of the teaching, at the least for graduate students.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#22
The morality of the method isn't the problem, I don't think a voluntary survey could have such problems, rather it is the smallness of the sample size or have you not been reading the posts in this thread? Or do you simply nut understand that when one conducts surveys that sample size is of paramount importance.

With a sample size of 200 one person sways the figures 0.5%. 20 people sway the figure a full 10%. Standard deviations usually rest in the 2.5-5% range, so merely finding 12 people in this study who are incredibly stupid skews the numbers by one full standard division.

Of course we are talking about statistics here which requires a minimum knowledge of basic maths, so....
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#23
(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. Rolleyes
Reply
#24
(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.
Reply
#25
(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. Rolleyes

(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.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#26
(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.
[fon‌t=Arial Black]... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.[/font]
Reply
#27
(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.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A study on Fake News pbrower2a 15 13,148 12-16-2021, 12:25 PM
Last Post: David Horn
  Bill would delay sale of voter-approved recreational marijuana until 2023 treehugger 0 712 02-21-2021, 11:22 PM
Last Post: treehugger
  Lawmakers move to ban high-capacity magazines random3 0 595 02-13-2021, 06:02 AM
Last Post: random3
  Trump team weighs plan to nationalize high-speed networks nebraska 13 5,085 02-03-2018, 11:28 PM
Last Post: nom
  US Treasury says government borrowing will hit 8-year high nebraska 0 1,272 01-30-2018, 09:41 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Rahm Emanuel continues to pile up frequent-flier miles — costing taxpayers $46K nebraska 0 932 01-23-2018, 07:29 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Federal workers earn on average 50 percent more than private workforce, study shows nebraska 0 1,090 01-12-2018, 02:35 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  $15 minimum wage to cost California 400K jobs: Study nebraska 0 1,359 01-10-2018, 06:37 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Trump Tax Cuts Force Blue States to Deal With Harsh Reality: High Taxes Are Unpopular nebraska 0 1,076 01-09-2018, 08:55 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Why are taxes so high? Maybe because we're still footing the bill in Afghanistan nebraska 0 835 01-05-2018, 08:01 AM
Last Post: nebraska

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)