3 ms·
Having 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 bett
by lagadu 11y ago
Having 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.