GirlChat #737475

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Ah, Stats 101

Posted by Gimwinkle on Tuesday, January 12 2021 at 02:43:26AM
In reply to Yes, a sample size of n = 4 is woefully inadequate posted by girlzRprettiest on Monday, January 11 2021 at 4:26:56PM

Well, my original point was based on sans' claim:

... upward social mobility, which is almost complete bullshit.

I ignored his lack of adherence to the mathematical (statistical) rule of quantifying things. What defines "almost"? Nine is almost ten but nowhere near one million.

I would then point out your same lack of adherence. You wrote, "Traditionally", "n > 30 is necessary", and "meaningful results." What if the sample size is to be taken from a population of 29? Kind of hard to hit 30?

For me, "... almost complete..." would mean that I should at least show two or more cases in a population of.... wait, he made no declaration of the population he was referring to. So, all I really needed to do was get beyond his "almost complete". Complete, then, would mean 100 out of 100. Or one million out of one million. Again, nine is almost ten yet nowhere near "almost" twenty. So, I figured more than two would qualify as debunking his "almost complete".

As for his "bullshit" claim, I know he was writing figuratively. Cattle excrement was not intended as a case value. But I understood his meaning. He was refuting my point by saying any reference I made was not true.

I gave some examples of people in my life who's rise beyond poverty was real. Even my own example (albeit short lived) was real. If it would not identify me or my loved ones, I'd give you my brother's name and the business' address and suggest that you look up the tax payments that were made in the past few years. Because nobody in the Kaneff family remembers me, I gave out that example of a business that went from rags to riches.

I am sure, if I had the inclination to, I could start another business with no money at all and sell it for over $100,000 in less than 5 years. But, I am retired and perfectly happy sitting in my rocking chair contemplating my navel. My point, here, is that in the economy that I am currently living in (Canadian), I am pretty much free to grow a business so long as I follow the established rules for doing so, such as paying taxes. Yes, a fellow businessman competing against me as we both sell seashells will try to operate and build his business by contracting with as many of the oysters on our beach (on?) as he can. But he certainly won't kill the oysters that have contracted with me, now will he? It's hypothetically illegal to kill oysters. The Canadian economy is pretty much open to "oyster businesses" like most of the rest of the Western World.

If you are going to start making statistical statements, which I have not intended to do, then you need to fully qualify them. The study of Statistics involves inductive logic not deductive. "Fifty percent of the people" could mean 5 people in a group of ten or five million people in a group of ten million.

Since all I got was "almost all" (to paraphrase), then all I thought to do was give a couple examples that would cast doubt to the claim. This, I think, I have done.

Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)

Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?