Perpetually tired mental health counselor, sometimes retro game streamer, comedian, Mensan, coffee connoisseur, bacon lover, chronic pain survivor, nefarious pirate, and generally all-round nice dude…

  • 0 Posts
  • 39 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 23rd, 2023

help-circle
  • Then they need to state it, because the only data they’ve given is that they asked a group of 13 people, one group, which is still not an adequate sample. Period.

    That, right there, is why focus groups shouldn’t be used for this to generalize a larger population, because the data is being misinterpreted to sell a biased story! Probability would be estimated if they actually conducted a full study. Which they clearly didn’t.

    And you can’t use previously gathered data from battleground states to estimate results after an event. They’re snapshots of an opinion at that given time. You can’t use them for an event that occurred after the fact. Again, that’s unethical and inappropriate.


  • Oh no, I very much do. I have a degree in psychology that requires being able to do statistical analysis for research.

    You use a focus group to elicit qualitative, not quantitative, info from a targeted group in a study, not as the study itself. The issue is, it’s not meant for broad populations or for quantitative studies. Even then, the data is easily skewed by biases from the group themselves, the moderator, and the interpreter and shouldn’t be the only thing used.

    Focus groups are meant for things like quality indicators, where you use a range of them in general analysis, which can help to triangulate where an issue is.

    To properly employ a focus group, you would first need to poll an appropriate sample size of undecided voters then you target demographics within the sample to gain insight into why they answered their poll as they did.


  • You don’t publish initial results without a significant population sample. 13 people is an abysmal sample size. You need around 10% of a population polled up until about 1,000 people because of the way the curve levels out. 100 people minimum to get something remotely confident. The confidence level of this poll is so low that the publishing of it is irresponsible and unethical.

    To your argument about the other poll having only 8, that’s also irresponsible. Both articles are clearly jumping to conclusions in an effort to grab views. However, that it received a more positive response is clearly indicative of the way the lemmy population leans. That’s really about all you can grab from that… Well, that and people have no idea how statistical averaging works.


  • Oh cool, a bunch of soldiers whos only military experience is goose stepping in front of their glorious leader and filling up balloons with shit to float over South Korea…

    They’re the global equivalent of the stereotypical trenchcoat wearing, wannabe-nazi bullies that leave flaming bags of shit on people’s doorsteps and couldnt spraypaint a swastika if they had a gun to their head.

    I hope Kim rations them extra pants, cause given their track record, they’re going to be filling up more than balloons.


  • “They wouldn’t even let me talk! How am I supposed to debate when I can’t talk all the time? Biden got to talk when it was his turn, but they wouldn’t let me get a word in edgewise while he was talking to tell him how wrong he is… Also, what am I supposed to do with a pen and paper? Who uses a pen and paper in this day and age? Am I supposed to write a letter? Why can’t I have my phone to tweet live about how unfairly I’m being treated!? Literally the most rigged, one-sided debate in ALL of history! And I’d know! I’ve been warning everyone this whole time they’ll rig things from the start! Just like they RIGGED THE LAST ELECTION!!!”