Kids in Pennsylvania eat an average of 22.862 sugary snacks a week, per a recent study, which is the highest rate in the United StatesSAR_and_Shitposts t1_j3odclo wrote
Reply to comment by thirteenoranges in Kids in Pennsylvania eat an average of 22.862 sugary snacks a week, per a recent study, which is the highest rate in the United States by Raz0rRamon
You don’t need to do a statistical analysis to determine that a mean of 22.7 people is likely insufficient to represent an entire state. The cumulative data might have been sufficient to represent the country as a whole, but there isn’t a large enough sample size to draw conclusions by state.
thirteenoranges t1_j3oduys wrote
Based on what statistical analysis? You’re just repeating a claim without evidence to back it up.
I’m not disagreeing it’s a seemingly small sample size. What I’m saying is properly conducted surveys and the right statistical evidence can still use a small sample size to demonstrate the conclusions are representative of the population.
You don’t seem to have any evidence that the survey and statistical analysis weren’t conducted properly. That would actually be helpful in determining the potential accuracy of the survey results.
untilyouredead t1_j3pqkzw wrote
quite truthfully, shut the fuck up
thirteenoranges t1_j3pxl7t wrote
Why? Why are you so angry about a conversation about how surveys and statistics work?
[deleted] t1_j3qzr5b wrote
On its face, this was not a rigorous study.
pointing that out is valuable for readers who aren't familiar with surveys or "sTaTiSticAl AnAlYsiS".
Infographics are meant to be taken at face value. The takeaway with this one is that statistically, with about 20 participants per state, no statistician would even hint at this being representative of the populations they claim.
20 respondents wouldn't be enough to be representative of my daughters elementary school, let alone a state.
thirteenoranges t1_j3r1suk wrote
You demonstrate you also don’t have a basic understanding of surveys and statistics.
The sample size does not (alone) determine the likelihood that the sample is representative of the population.
A small sample size with a properly conducted survey — and with, yes, proper statistical analysis… not sure why you’re mocking that phrase — can represent the population with high likelihood.
This is 101 stuff. I’m shocked how many people here are downvoting me for citing a 9th grade statistics class I took 20 years ago. I thought this was common knowledge.
[deleted] t1_j3r3nei wrote
>I’m shocked how many people here are downvoting me for citing a 9th grade statistics class I took 20 years ago
hey! I found your problem!
thirteenoranges t1_j3r3t5e wrote
That I paid attention to a basic 101 statistics class?
By the way, took a similar class in college. The math didn’t change.
Your hubris is alarming.
[deleted] t1_j3rgb5v wrote
what hubris? I would suggest you circle back because either or memory or education ain't as good as you think.
thirteenoranges t1_j3rhaxh wrote
Please feel free to actually dispute what I’m saying with an authoritative source. Your grammatically incorrect “insults” about my education are really just weird and sad.
[deleted] t1_j3rhiwr wrote
No.
Google it yourself dipshit.
thirteenoranges t1_j3rigxh wrote
Interesting way to admit you’re wrong.
Google will give you plenty of results showing why sample size isn’t the only (or even primary) indicator of a sample being representative of the population.
[deleted] t1_j3ryzss wrote
I think it's a bold assertion that this small dental group used demographic data to select a high quality sample. Especially considering there doesn't seem to be any documentation to go along with it. Their google doc cited doesn't even exist any longer.
So we have one metric to base our judgement on, sample size.
Why don't you go ahead and let us know what you believe the threshold for a reasonable sample size is. Then see how many states match that with 20 participants.
You don't even have to do math. Your highschool stats book likely has a chart. Although, I don't think many of the charts will include confidence intervals low enough for your standards.
thirteenoranges t1_j3rzd9e wrote
I didn’t assert anything about the quality of this particular sample. I asked questions about it but have not made any assertions myself.
I did assert that sample size alone is not enough to draw a conclusion about the quality of the sample.
[deleted] t1_j3s7wz5 wrote
oh, you came to this thread to make a generalization about surveys, not to talk about THIS survey.
Then you ask people to prove this one isn't well done.
When people present you with the only evidence available that it is not, you keep saying that your 9th grade education says that THEY are may be wrong.
Then when asked specifically how you would evaluate this survey based on the information available, oh, you're just talking about survey size in general?
got it.
I was right like three comments back. you're a dipshit.
thirteenoranges t1_j3s8do8 wrote
Relax buddy. It seems you agree with me that the quality of the survey and the sample is significant in drawing conclusions about the population. That is literally the point I was making. Why are you getting off insulting me and calling me names for making a point you agree with?
[deleted] t1_j3scgt3 wrote
because your point is unrelated to this post.
no one thinks you're wrong about your general point. the problem is, it's not applicable here. that's why I'm calling you a dipshit.
If you weren't a dipshit you wouldn't be in this post asking people to prove this survey holds little weight using statistical analysis. When, at a cursory glance, it hasn't been conducted at a level that would grant it significance.
And why am I here arguing with you and calling you names? just bored I guess. I certainly don't care about any of this. I suppose it satisfies some of my very worst impulses. you're here playing the same game though, so I dont feel bad about it.
I'm a dickhead and you're very smart (and also a dickhead). a match made in heaven
thirteenoranges t1_j3se1gh wrote
My point is directly related to the comment I replied to, which asserted the sample size alone is a reason to dismiss the conclusions made by this post.
I do care about people misinterpreting surveys and statistics.
[deleted] t1_j3sfxn3 wrote
it is plenty enough of a reason to dismiss this post. especially with no documentation to accompany it. even with targeted selection, these sample sizes are extremely small.
You can only make judgements based on the information available. The only information here is sample size and that they conducted this survey via a Google form.
Anyways. unless you have a reason to offer this infographic deserves consideration, I'm done with this chat.
later dumb dumb
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments