4 ms·
That's a pretty terrible data point because of how biased it is. It's like saying that everyone who abandoned a certain film halfway says the film is bad and c
by lagadu 11y ago
That's a pretty terrible data point because of how biased it is.
It's like saying that everyone who abandoned a certain film halfway says the film is bad and concluding that most people in general hate the film: your data points are coming from a group who almost exclusively hated the film in the first place: they're not representative of the entire population.
- moomin 11y agoWell, Ashe Dryden's pretty much debunked this whole line of reasoning better than I ever can. So I'll point you at that https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/dissent-unheard-of https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/dissent-unheard-of If you're still unconvinced, you might want to start examining your own sample bias.
- lagadu 11y agoHaving read the article, nothing there explains why you feel that using a sub-group that self-selected for a particular characteristic we're examining is a better sample of a population than a randomly selected one. As I re-read the paragraph I just wrote above, I can't feel but be amused by your suggestion that I should examine my own sample bias despite your blind defense of your own; in other words: your presumption that somehow yours is "better" or "truer".
- moomin 11y agoYou've already got the randomly selected sample, it's linked to in the original article. The figure was 60%. You've got the article explaining why there's a discrepancy between the number of public leavers and the numbers in the study. This isn't some matter of moral equivalence or even intellectual debate, no matter how much you would like it to be. But I can see we're unlikely to make much progress on this front.
- facepalm 11y agoActually those 60% were not from a random sample.