2 ms·

Yeah. I looked into that book. His sample size was 345 people on a 'self reported' survey the authors randomly sent to rich neighborhoods. Any self respecting

Yeah. I looked into that book. His sample size was 345 people on a 'self reported' survey the authors randomly sent to rich neighborhoods. Any self respecting scientist would blow their brains out with a shotgun if they were forced to use these results to draw enough conclusions to write a 200 page book with.... This scumbag presents ratios the entire book instead of actual numbers,then at the very end tells you his sample size. That book is the biggest money grab crock of shit on earth and is as conclusive as a two year olds explanation on why the sky is blue. If you ever reference that book as a talking point you should be absolutely ashamed of your self because you're a garbage person who is using fake science to fit their bullshit narrative of the poverty being an individuals fault instead of a systemic issue.

gbacon 8y ago
Yes, self-reported results will have biases. We might also note selection bias if all the surveys went to neighborhoods in the same city or even the same state, for example. Americans have (or at least had) cultural mores against discussing the topics of personal finance, income, and net worth at all. Where would you suggest starting? Statistics requires training and does have some intuitively nonobvious results, such as determining sample size[0]. If you prefer more interactive, Survey Monkey has a form[1] that lets you select population size, confidence, and margin of error. For the U.S. population of 325 million at 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error, the necessary sample size is 385 — not far from your figure Stanley’s. The topic warrants future study, but Stanley’s book does destroy the notion that all millionaires are a bunch of Paris Hiltons and Thurston Howells — for those readers who are willing to challenge their own prejudices. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination [1]: https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/ https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  The site doesnt go any higher than 385 and it says you need that for anywhere from 100,000 people to 20 billion people, which may be true if the sampling was completely random and there were multiple studies done. How did he determine the sampling was random? How can you confirm the self reported data was correct? Also this was ONE SINGLE unreproduced study...no scientist in the world would write a 2 page paper based on one study much less 200 pages. That worthless book destroys NO notions. That book is propaganda selling a false narrative based on extremely shoddy science and it would do you well to throw it directly into the garbage.

gbacon 8y ago

Yes, self-reported results will have biases. We might also note selection bias if all the surveys went to neighborhoods in the same city or even the same state, for example. Americans have (or at least had) cultural mores against discussing the topics of personal finance, income, and net worth at all. Where would you suggest starting? Statistics requires training and does have some intuitively nonobvious results, such as determining sample size[0]. If you prefer more interactive, Survey Monkey has a form[1] that lets you select population size, confidence, and margin of error. For the U.S. population of 325 million at 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error, the necessary sample size is 385 — not far from your figure Stanley’s. The topic warrants future study, but Stanley’s book does destroy the notion that all millionaires are a bunch of Paris Hiltons and Thurston Howells — for those readers who are willing to challenge their own prejudices. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination [1]: https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/ https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/

nickthemagicman 8y ago
The site doesnt go any higher than 385 and it says you need that for anywhere from 100,000 people to 20 billion people, which may be true if the sampling was completely random and there were multiple studies done. How did he determine the sampling was random? How can you confirm the self reported data was correct? Also this was ONE SINGLE unreproduced study...no scientist in the world would write a 2 page paper based on one study much less 200 pages. That worthless book destroys NO notions. That book is propaganda selling a false narrative based on extremely shoddy science and it would do you well to throw it directly into the garbage.