Active Users:471 Time:13/12/2025 04:35:03 PM
Done Tor Send a noteboard - 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM
To produce a deviation as large as the one we are discussing here, a systematic bias is clearly needed.


No it isn't. You cannot expect a non-deviant result from a self-selected sample. Stop trying to insist otherwise. This is mathematical fact, not a matter of opinion.


So, I went and had a look at some statistics texts, and here are a few juicy quotes (emphasis mine):

---

Self-selection bias is the problem that very often results when survey respondents are allowed to decide entirely for themselves whether or not they want to participate in a survey. To the extent that respondents' propensity for participating in the study is correlated with the substantive topic the researchers are trying to study, there will be self-selection bias in the resulting data.

---

A voluntary response sample consists of people who choose themselves by responding to a general appeal. Voluntary response samples are biased because people with strong opinions, especially negative opinions, are most likely to respond.

---

A sample of convenience is a sample that is not drawn by a well-defined random method. The big problem with samples of convenience is that they may differ systematically in some way from the population. For this reason, samples of convenience should not be used, except in situations where it is not feasible to draw a random sample. When it is necessary to draw a sample of convenience, it is important to think carefully about all the ways in which the sample might differ systematically from the population. If it is reasonable to believe that no important systematic difference exists, then it may be acceptable to treat the sample of convenience as if it were a simple random sample.

---

Now, I've done as you asked, and in return, I would be very grateful if you would respond to my thought experiment from the other thread. I'm really quite pleased with it. I'll repeat it here, for you convenience:

So, thought experiment time:

You have a thousand people, all of which have a coin. You then ask anyone who feels like it to come forward, and flip their coin. I would expect roughly the same number of heads and tails, but would you? Remember, this is one of those scary self-selected samples.

Next, you have a thousand people, all of which have a coin. You tell them all to flip their coin, and use a magic marker to put a mark on the face that lands up, without looking at the result. You then ask whoever feels like it to come forward, and show you their coin. I would still expect roughly the same number of heads and tails, but would you?

Edit: Spelling.
Fram kamerater!
This message last edited by Tor on 31/10/2012 at 09:34:49 AM
Reply to message
The Bell Curve revisited - 29/10/2012 09:44:09 AM 1619 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited - 29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM 994 Views
That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM 1584 Views
Re: That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM 972 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM 917 Views
Response to a few of your poorly researched points... - 29/10/2012 02:31:17 PM 859 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM 855 Views
Exactly... - 29/10/2012 02:39:30 PM 854 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM 870 Views
Excellent point. - 29/10/2012 08:24:37 PM 905 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM 817 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM 796 Views
Re: Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 07:07:17 AM 805 Views
I don't think it plays much role in the plot - 30/10/2012 03:17:55 PM 959 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength - 30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM 818 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population? - 29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM 757 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength? - 29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM 771 Views
Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM 863 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM 772 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not. - 30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM 857 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random. - 30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM 785 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM 791 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM 792 Views
Go read a stats text will you? - 30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM 780 Views
Done - 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM 1551 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM 1065 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM 889 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 07:14:48 PM 741 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:33:59 PM 1559 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:43:19 PM 1124 Views
Still nothing? - 10/11/2012 03:33:15 PM 893 Views
Still doesn't explain the difference - 30/10/2012 07:01:53 PM 729 Views
Re: Still doesn't explain the difference - 10/11/2012 10:21:00 PM 810 Views
Yes that totally makes sense - 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM 904 Views
Thank you! *NM* - 30/10/2012 10:19:15 AM 419 Views
That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM 848 Views
Re: That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:15:57 PM 782 Views
Who said it would? - 30/10/2012 02:44:17 PM 801 Views
let's not mix up "random" and "representative" - 30/10/2012 05:28:09 PM 858 Views
Doesn't mean RJ applied it to his series - 30/10/2012 08:23:29 AM 870 Views
But of course he did.. - 30/10/2012 02:13:07 PM 905 Views
I hate to get into these things - 29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM 940 Views
I would love for you to be right, because it would solve all our problems, but 0 is the challenge... - 29/10/2012 07:56:34 PM 923 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM 930 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM* - 29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM 488 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic... - 29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM 842 Views
You're pathetic... - 30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM 771 Views
The quote isn't specific - 30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM 888 Views
Its highly specific... - 30/10/2012 02:15:38 PM 732 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken - 30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM 1393 Views
Honestly! - 30/10/2012 02:07:37 AM 830 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM 839 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it - 30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM 790 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM 970 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM 902 Views
Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM 895 Views
Re: Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM 810 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me - 30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM 1136 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM 912 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM 786 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers - 30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM 922 Views
you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM 1057 Views
+1 *NM* - 30/10/2012 09:17:07 AM 930 Views
Re: you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 09:21:39 AM 915 Views
Not true... - 30/10/2012 11:49:57 AM 890 Views
One thing - 30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM 878 Views
That's the problem. The BC RJ has "built" has a minimum and a maximum value - 30/10/2012 05:48:55 PM 885 Views

Reply to Message