Mythbusting on the escapist.

[DexterNorgam]

Believe what you want to believe man. There's still no information about how that sample was put together. If you want to believe that 51% is a realistic number go right ahead. It isn't, but honestly your attitude is repulsive, which might explain why you got into statistics in the first place and I don't feel going into why cbs would have interest in spinning it.

I'm sorry that I called into question something you have spent so much time learning. Its nothing to take personal, I'm not assaulting "statistics" with this thread whatever you might believe, simply that stating that 51% not a realistic number.

They aren't going to give you a run-by-run of their sampling techniques. Their statisticians worked hard to develop them, so they aren't going to give it away. They keep it vague enough. And there really is no evidence of spin. They told you how the question was asked and showed you the direct frequencies of each option they gave the participants. I'm not saying spin doesn't exist, but there doesn't appear to be any here.

And you didn't call Statistics "into question". You outright butchered and misunderstood the field. There's a severe and massive difference between calling something reasonably into question and outright failing to understand fundamentals within that field. You happened to do the latter.

And 51% might not be an accurate number, but by god 40% is. That 40% comes from one of the single most respected and skilled pollster groups in the nation. That 40% IS a realistic number. Saying so otherwise would be approaching outright denial or trolling. Honestly now... is 40% of Americans believing God created humans in their current state really that much better than 51% of them believing that?

Hell man, the percentage of people who think humans evolved without the aid of god is practically identical in both the CBS and Gallup poll. You kind of ignored that part, didn't you?

1. still so rude, why?
2. You don't think there's spin, great, I do.
3. I never argued the 40% I typically believe gallup.
4. the difference between 40 and 51 percent of 309 million is a pretty large group of people, and also the difference between less and more than half.
5. Feel free to have the last word. You've made it clear you think that 51 percent is reasonable, and I disagree, and frankly I'm pretty sick of your attitude of superiority and rudeness and maintain that knowing more about statistics than I do doesn't make 51% a realistic number.
6. Had you been a decent human being in explaining my error instead of a giant prick I might even be interested to know in greater detail about statistics and how "i was wrong", but you repulse me and should expect no further replies.

 

[Kinguendo]

Mythbusting? Global warming.

Heh, I'd love to do that one, but this place is just too liberal, I'd have the people who really believe in that all over me.

Is there such a thing as being too Liberal? He wants peace and equality so much... look at him being fair to women AND gay people... oh no, hes talking to a black person AND a white person at the same time. DONT CROSS THE STREAMS! He doesnt like violence and doesnt want to shoot people... TOO LIBERAL!

I honestly dont understand the concept of "Too Liberal".

its exactly like the concept "too conservative".

Ya know, he values personal freedom more than government nanny states and entitlement programs... and the like...

Don't be silly both sides of the isle there have good points but yea, both can be taken too far too.

Right, but what you described (isnt how Conservatives behave when in power) is just Conservative.

 

[DexterNorgam]

Mythbusting? Global warming.

Heh, I'd love to do that one, but this place is just too liberal, I'd have the people who really believe in that all over me.

Is there such a thing as being too Liberal? He wants peace and equality so much... look at him being fair to women AND gay people... oh no, hes talking to a black person AND a white person at the same time. DONT CROSS THE STREAMS! He doesnt like violence and doesnt want to shoot people... TOO LIBERAL!

I honestly dont understand the concept of "Too Liberal".

its exactly like the concept "too conservative".

Ya know, he values personal freedom more than government nanny states and entitlement programs... and the like...

Don't be silly both sides of the isle there have good points but yea, both can be taken too far too.

Right, but what you described (isnt how Conservatives behave when in power) is just Conservative.

Really that depends on which "conservatives in power" you're referring to. I'm not sure that one can accurately say there have been many conservatives in power during my lifetime. Sure, republicans have but that isn't really the same thing. Besides, despite your hyperbole there are actual conservatives, like myself who are not opposed to anything that you listed as liberal.

It can go too far though. Should California tax payer money in the form of food stamps be allowed to be used to purchase medical marijuana?? Maybe thats a bit too liberal.

Also, one does not have to "like violence", or "want to shoot people" to be a conservative lol.

 

[Kinguendo]

Mythbusting? Global warming.

Heh, I'd love to do that one, but this place is just too liberal, I'd have the people who really believe in that all over me.

Is there such a thing as being too Liberal? He wants peace and equality so much... look at him being fair to women AND gay people... oh no, hes talking to a black person AND a white person at the same time. DONT CROSS THE STREAMS! He doesnt like violence and doesnt want to shoot people... TOO LIBERAL!

I honestly dont understand the concept of "Too Liberal".

its exactly like the concept "too conservative".

Ya know, he values personal freedom more than government nanny states and entitlement programs... and the like...

Don't be silly both sides of the isle there have good points but yea, both can be taken too far too.

Right, but what you described (isnt how Conservatives behave when in power) is just Conservative.

Really that depends on which "conservatives in power" you're referring to. I'm not sure that one can accurately say there have been many conservatives in power during my lifetime. Sure, republicans have but that isn't really the same thing. Besides, despite your hyperbole there are actual conservatives, like myself who are not opposed to anything that you listed as liberal.

It can go too far though. Should California tax payer money in the form of food stamps be allowed to be used to purchase medical marijuana?? Maybe thats a bit too liberal.

Also, one does not have to "like violence", or "want to shoot people" to be a conservative lol.

No, the Liberal thing would be to legalize it and have universal healthcare. And Liberals were the ones who accpeted and embraced all of those things LONG before the conservatives were dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

 

[enzilewulf]

Heh the site is to "liberal"... ohh my..

 

[Berethond]

So lets let that slide. Lets ignore that the source is CBS. Does this still wash? Nope. Because it only takes the most cursory examination to show that they called a whopping 808 people. That's important when you consider that in 2009 the estimated population of the US was 309 MILLION people. 808 people is a pretty small portion of 309 million. It may have been more accurate and less misleading if this poll were to have said that 51% of 0.0002614886731391586% of Americans do not believe in in evolution.

/facepalm. You are so wrong. You are so wrong that it caused me physical pain. You clearly do not know anything about sampling theory. Hell, you probably didn't even know something called "sampling theory" even existed.

Listen, when you sample (which means "take a survey") you want it to be representative, which means you construct a random sample (which is what the CBS survey did). This randomization ensures that all elements in the sample space (i.e. everyone in America) has an equally likely chance of being selected. If you have a random sample, then you can use various techniques of statistical inference to generalize the results of your sample to the population as a whole, which is again, what this study did. The study is not invalid because of its small sample size. It's called "sampling" for a reason. A basic understanding of Statistics would have saved yourself the embarrassment of so grossly misunderstanding the field.

Please, learn something about statistics before you try to talk about it. I'm in the process of applying to Masters/PhD programs in Statistics... I sort of know a little more about this sort-of thing than you.

If you don't mind me asking, how large a sample size do you need to have for it to be representative? Also, does sample size influence the margin of error?

 

[Stall]

If you don't mind me asking, how large a sample size do you need to have for it to be representative? Also, does sample size influence the margin of error?

The size of a sample isn't really makes a sample representative. Representativeness arises from the manner in which you sample. A representative sample means all the different members of the population you sample from have an equal probability to be picked for your survey; or to be more concise, your sample is "random" (hence is why you will hear the term "random sample" used a lot). However, a small sample of a large population might have a large error, which is a good segue to your next question. Margin of error is inversely proportional to your sample size: as you increase your sample size, you drive down the margin of error, and vice-versa. This is why you need a large sample size, because if your margin of error is too big, then your sample is kind of worthless.

 

[Draconalis]

I came into this thread hoping the Mythbusters were doing something on games, or coming to the site for a comment or two...

I was disappointed.