Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thirteenoranges t1_j3s8do8 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] 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

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?

1

[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

1

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.

1

[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

1