3 ms·

> "I disagree that the number of subjects doesn't matter." you're asking for people with deeper knowledge than you for their help, and then disagreeing with th

> "I disagree that the number of subjects doesn't matter." you're asking for people with deeper knowledge than you for their help, and then disagreeing with them? I get it -- you're skeptical because of sample size. But recall that "sample size" isn't necessarily the number of test subjects, but the number of measurements, as the comment about Mercury demonstrates. Moreover, a strong signal can be detected even from a small sample size; a coin flipping the same way 11 times in a row could be mere chance, but a roulette wheel hitting the same number 11 times in a row should not happen in the entire history of the universe by mere chance. It's not just the number of measurements, but the significance of each one, that matter for statistical confidence. Sure, you could get an even stronger signal with a larger sample size. But that doesn't mean "a study of 11 people" is necessarily insignificant or too small of a sample. It might be too small, or it might be enough to have a very high degree of certainty.

Jabbles 10y ago
Your analogy to Mercury or flipping coins isn't helpful. (Nor is Kama Sutra below.) I was talking about this experiment, the one the article is about, the one which I linked in my comment. The one which is apparently attracting modestly widespread media coverage.
- lotharbot 10y ago
  > "I was talking about this experiment" The analogies are meant to demonstrate that sample size is (1) not as straightforward as asking "how many subjects" and (2) less important in circumstances where the signal is strong. In other words, we're trying to give you the tools to evaluate for yourself. The initial article is about "an experiment involving 11 people", and your skepticism seemed to be about whether it's even possible to get valid results with that sample size (answer: yes). Even in this study, yes, you can get a valid result from "only" 11 people.

Jabbles 10y ago

Your analogy to Mercury or flipping coins isn't helpful. (Nor is Kama Sutra below.) I was talking about this experiment, the one the article is about, the one which I linked in my comment. The one which is apparently attracting modestly widespread media coverage.

lotharbot 10y ago
> "I was talking about this experiment" The analogies are meant to demonstrate that sample size is (1) not as straightforward as asking "how many subjects" and (2) less important in circumstances where the signal is strong. In other words, we're trying to give you the tools to evaluate for yourself. The initial article is about "an experiment involving 11 people", and your skepticism seemed to be about whether it's even possible to get valid results with that sample size (answer: yes). Even in this study, yes, you can get a valid result from "only" 11 people.