3 ms·

Yeah, this is bullshit. 100 people were a part of this "controlled" study. Please don't be one of those people that runs around telling people this. This is n

Yeah, this is bullshit. 100 people were a part of this "controlled" study. Please don't be one of those people that runs around telling people this. This is nothing more than biased surveying by a weak company in attempt to create self-promoting propaganda. Thank you @1_over_n for doing the research

nabla9 8y ago
100 people can be enough. Single number like N is not going to tell much. People should learn the basics of statistics before they start to have opinions.
- _underfl0w_ 8y ago
  ...or the basis of where funding comes from? I think you missed what the parent was alluding to.
- kempbellt 8y ago
  In what world would 100 people be enough to represent anything accurately enough to make a generalized claim like this? All I know from the article is that there were 50 women and 50 men involved. It says nothing of age, fitness, dietary regimen, etc. Based on the "statistics" provided, I could equally make the claim that "drinking a warm drink reduces DNA damage". Also, please don't generalize "people" in your backhanded comment. I recommend that you study up on critical reasoning. Maybe then you would come to understanding that most "statistics" are unintentionally (or intentionally) biased, and are therefore bullshit, and not to be taken at face value.
  - nabla9 8y ago
    I criticized your backhanded N = 100 comment because it's silly. Your comment "In what world would 100 people be enough" shows your disbelief in basic statistics. In typical well conducted study N=100 participants is close to the minimum sample size when the population is large. No statistician says that N = 100 is not enough to represent things accurately without knowing other parameters and the design of the study. With large enough effect size N=1 is more than enough and. N = 1800 is enough even if the population size is infinite in the optimal case.
    - kempbellt 8y ago
      You've got me there. I believe most basic statistics are deterministically useless. I asked 3 people if they agreed with me. 2/3 said yes. So I guess I'm right

nabla9 8y ago

100 people can be enough. Single number like N is not going to tell much. People should learn the basics of statistics before they start to have opinions.

_underfl0w_ 8y ago
...or the basis of where funding comes from? I think you missed what the parent was alluding to.
kempbellt 8y ago
In what world would 100 people be enough to represent anything accurately enough to make a generalized claim like this? All I know from the article is that there were 50 women and 50 men involved. It says nothing of age, fitness, dietary regimen, etc. Based on the "statistics" provided, I could equally make the claim that "drinking a warm drink reduces DNA damage". Also, please don't generalize "people" in your backhanded comment. I recommend that you study up on critical reasoning. Maybe then you would come to understanding that most "statistics" are unintentionally (or intentionally) biased, and are therefore bullshit, and not to be taken at face value.
- nabla9 8y ago
  I criticized your backhanded N = 100 comment because it's silly. Your comment "In what world would 100 people be enough" shows your disbelief in basic statistics. In typical well conducted study N=100 participants is close to the minimum sample size when the population is large. No statistician says that N = 100 is not enough to represent things accurately without knowing other parameters and the design of the study. With large enough effect size N=1 is more than enough and. N = 1800 is enough even if the population size is infinite in the optimal case.
  - kempbellt 8y ago
    You've got me there. I believe most basic statistics are deterministically useless. I asked 3 people if they agreed with me. 2/3 said yes. So I guess I'm right