(May 12, 2025 at 10:44 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(May 12, 2025 at 12:34 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Not only is your sample size far to small, the fact that you're happy to publicly generalize from such a particular speaks volumes about your own thought process. Stick to philosophy, because you don't know shit about statistics or demographics or analysis.
It was certainly clear to me that Bel wasn't making any formal statistical inference—he is allowed to suspect. And no statistician would treat Bel's suspicion as invalid; they would simply say that the inference doesn't carry that much information or that it has low reliability. But that's both obvious and implied in the conversation, unless, of course, you're an obtuse and uncharitable reader.
But since you know about statistics and analysis, surely you can at tell us what the appropriate sample size should have been? (Tip: You can't answer that unless you know how much information we wish to obtain, among other things, which you don't.)
Bold mine - that's because the two of you babble the same language.
I'm your huckleberry.
