3 ms·
it was a sample of 12 people, so it's already meaningless. this "research" is the justification for a study, not a study in and of itself.
by knodi123 11y ago
it was a sample of 12 people, so it's already meaningless. this "research" is the justification for a study, not a study in and of itself.
- sliverstorm 11y agoHow is it simultaneously meaningless and also a justification for further study?
- opnitro 11y agoMeaningless to draw large scale conclusions on. It's a "This is something we should look more closely at" not a "Send this person around the country STAT"
- biomcgary 11y agoWhat makes this result meaningless? The probability of her guessing all 12 correctly at random is: 0.0002 (i.e., approximately 0.5^12). So, it is far more statistically significant than many published results.
- Rexxar 11y agoThe minimal sample size depends on the effect you try to measure. Big effects can be validated with smaller sample size.
- KingMob 11y agoWhile it's true this is mostly justification for further investigation, correctly categorizing 12/12 people into 2 categories actually has a p-val of .000244141 = (1/(2^12)), which would easily allow you to reject the null hypothesis of random categorization. The stronger the effect, the fewer samples you need. We consider n=12 generally underpowered only because many real-world effects are way weaker than the ability this woman demonstrated.