It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: dug88
originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: dug88
Using confidence level of 95%, I find a confidence interval of 7.5 for that sample sjze. What did you get?
Well it's been a while since i've done statistics...but doesn't seem like you can really say anything at all either way with a confidence interval of 7.5 at 95%.
In order to even begin making the claims in the OP this poll would have needed at least 9600 participants...and that's just to get a confidence interval of 1 at 95% confidence.
Based on that poll you'd have a better chance at flipping a coin and trying to guess.
originally posted by: dug88
originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: dug88
Using confidence level of 95%, I find a confidence interval of 7.5 for that sample sjze. What did you get?
Well it's been a while since i've done statistics...but doesn't seem like you can really say anything at all either way with a confidence interval of 7.5 at 95%.
In order to even begin making the claims in the OP this poll would have needed at least 9600 participants...and that's just to get a confidence interval of 1 at 95% confidence.
Based on that poll you'd have a better chance at flipping a coin and trying to guess.
Kanye Tweeted out the one thing Obama doesn’t want to hear… That his home city of Chicago isn’t falling for Obama’s empty words anymore. That Obama was in charge for 8 years and NOTHING changed on the violent streets of Chicago.
“ reached out to Obama for years and couldn’t get anything done, but Trump gave me a meeting,” Kanye said.
Liberals became more furious when Kanye proudly Tweeted out a picture of his autographed “Make America Great Again” hat, which President Trump retweeted!
After Kanye Announced Support For Trump, He Leaked Obama’s Worst Nightmare
Fake News: AP Touts Anti-Trump Poll with Warped Demographics Conducted by Soros-Backed Org
The Associated Press on Monday released a news making story with a glaring headline claiming that “Most young Americans don’t see Trump as a legitimate leader.”
A closer look at the survey finds it was conducted by a group financed by billionaire George Soros whose activist arm demands reparations for slavery and “mass incarceration,” and has engaged in anti-police activism.
In addition, the survey was not representative of the racial and ethnic profiles of young adults. Instead it focused heavily on demographic samples of populations that voted overwhelmingly against Donald Trump.
Fake News: AP Touts Anti-Trump Poll with Warped Demographics Conducted by Soros-Backed Org
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: dug88
That's a pretty statistically significant sample size you got there bud.
Polls are fairly useless ways to get information period.
You put a lot of energy into your post without really knowing statistics, but you are correct that 177 samples IS significant.
originally posted by: dug88
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: dug88
That's a pretty statistically significant sample size you got there bud.
Polls are fairly useless ways to get information period.
You put a lot of energy into your post without really knowing statistics, but you are correct that 177 samples IS significant.
177/4200000 == 0.000004214285714285% of the target population.
In what way has it ever been possible to make broad sweeping claims based on a sample size of
0.000004214285714285% of a population?
I understand statistics..I mean i've only taken several statistics classes and used it every day for three years as a wildlife researcher and all...it's really easy to make any set of data look like what you want it to. But I do know as far as scientific sampling is concerned...trying to publish something like that would get you laughed at.
originally posted by: dug88
177/4200000 == 0.000004214285714285% of the target population.
In what way has it ever been possible to make broad sweeping claims based on a sample size of
0.000004214285714285% of a population?
I understand statistics..I mean i've only taken several statistics classes and used it every day for three years as a wildlife researcher and all...it's really easy to make any set of data look like what you want it to. But I do know as far as scientific sampling is concerned...trying to publish something like that would get you laughed at.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xtrozero
I took Statistics in college.
Was the only class that actually made my eyes bleed.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: dug88
177/4200000 == 0.000004214285714285% of the target population.
In what way has it ever been possible to make broad sweeping claims based on a sample size of
0.000004214285714285% of a population?
I understand statistics..I mean i've only taken several statistics classes and used it every day for three years as a wildlife researcher and all...it's really easy to make any set of data look like what you want it to. But I do know as far as scientific sampling is concerned...trying to publish something like that would get you laughed at.
So your answer here tells me you know very little about statistics. The size of the pool means little, its the sample size that counts. So to say out of 20,000, 20 million or 200 million doesn't really matter.
I'm not an expert on this but a sample size less than 30 is considered too small, so below I'll give you real numbers based on a 95% confidence level to help you understand.
Population of 420 would mean you need a sample size of 201 to get that 95% confidence level
4200 needs 353
42000 needs 381
420000 needs 384
4200000 needs 385
42000000 needs 385
4200000000000000000000000 needs 385
Even with a pool of 4200 you are now reaching the point of all possibilities, so after that all pool sizes have about the same number of possibilities no matter the size.
177 out of 42 million is about 82% confidence level and I do agree they should have done more sampling to get a 95%.
Get the picture..
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: TinfoilTP
Since polls are about as trustworthy as Hillary Clinton, I'll take this result with a grain of salt. I see that the usual suspects have already been here to determine that the poll is fake because 'conservative' - these same folks believed a poll that said Hillary had a 95% chance of winning the election - thats how stupid and gullible they are.
originally posted by: dug88
Ya that's my point 82% confidence level is not an acceptable level to be making claims about an entire population.
Would you take a drug that was tested and approved with that level of confidence? Say for effectiveness and I dunno risk of death?