So, how long do we have to wait until racist & gay jokes are funny again?

Originally posted by Robtard
Umm no... He made a claim and said it was fact, he has yet to prove it with reliable or even sensible evidence. 153 person Internet poll would not qualify as "reliable" by any sensible person. If this were a trial, the judge would throw that evidence out.

You miss the point of statistics me thinks. 🙂 Within that sample group he has a statistically significant number. The validity of that sample is something you can neither prove nor disprove. Whether that sample is representative or not is the issue. This is how market research companies can make claims like "8 out of 10 owners said there cats preferred it". 8 out of 10 owners asked said their cats preffered it, the fact we had already sent a questionaire out asking what they fed their cats was secondary etc.

Read "Lying with statistics", every Science or Social Sciences student should.

🙂

Originally posted by PVS
actually no since the only target audience for such a survey would be frequenters of that site. so its a completely flawed cross section and thus useless.

Originally posted by By Crom!
You miss the point of statistics me thinks. 🙂 Within that sample group he has a statistically significant number. The validity of that sample is something you can neither prove nor disprove. Whether that sample is representative or not is the issue. This is how market research companies can make claims like "8 out of 10 owners said there cats preferred it". 8 out of 10 owners asked.

Read "Lying with statistics", every Science or Social Sciences student should.

🙂

Using your example... Lets say "it" is Meow Mix... So if 8 cats out of a total of 10 (80% essentially) tested preferred Meow Mix to some other unnamed brands, I could then claim "as fact" 80% of all cats worldwide prefer Meow Mix? B.S., that is a factually baseless blanket generalization and you know it.

BTW, Don't always believe Market Research based adds, in the end, they are trying to get you to buy their product.

Originally posted by Robtard
Using your example... Lets say "it" is Meow Mix... So if 8 cats out of a total of 10 (80% essentially) total preferred Meow Mix to some other unnamed brands, I could then claim "as fact" 80% of all cats worldwide prefer Meow Mix? B.S., that is a factually baseless blanket generalization and you know it.

BTW, Don't always believe Market Research based adds, in the end, they are trying to get you to buy their product.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

http://plus.maths.org/issue41/features/parker/index.html

😉

🙂

It's all about interpretation and phraseology.

Originally posted by By Crom!
Lies, damn lies and statistics.

http://plus.maths.org/issue41/features/parker/index.html

😉

🙂

Like I said... His highest participant poll had 153 people, of those 80(79.56) leaned towards a racist point of view towards blacks. Even considering that every single one of those 80 people are white (which we do not know for sure), would you use 80 "white people" views as a basis to claim fact that "most white people are racist and just hide it'?

That and PVS's point about "target audience" pretty much makes it useless as noted.

Originally posted by Strangelove
your logic is flawed. Concede defeat

You miss the point 🙂

I could make a confident bet that you, gentle reader, have more than the average number of ears. Why? Let's assume there are six billion people in this crowded world of ours, more than 99% of them have two ears. There are a few exceptional people, who due to injury or birth, may have one or even no ears. There are, to my knowledge, no three-eared people (Captain Kirk is unfortunately fictional, but he did have three ears: a left ear, a right ear, and a final front ear). When we take an average (add up the total number of ears that humanity possesses, and divide by the number of people), we get the sum

Slightly less than 12 billion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 billion

which is slightly less than two. This means that, as most people in the world have 2 ears, this is very slightly more than the average, so most times I would win my bet.

Ahh, Statistics........

Originally posted by By Crom!
You miss the point 🙂

I could make a confident bet that you, gentle reader, have more than the average number of ears. Why? Let's assume there are six billion people in this crowded world of ours, more than 99% of them have two ears. There are a few exceptional people, who due to injury or birth, may have one or even no ears. There are, to my knowledge, no three-eared people (Captain Kirk is unfortunately fictional, but he did have three ears: a left ear, a right ear, and a final front ear). When we take an average (add up the total number of ears that humanity possesses, and divide by the number of people), we get the sum

Slightly less than 12 billion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 billion

which is slightly less than two. This means that, as most people in the world have 2 ears, this is very slightly more than the average, so most times I would win my bet.

Originally posted by By Crom!
You miss the point 🙂

I could make a confident bet that you, gentle reader, have more than the average number of ears. Why? Let's assume there are six billion people in this crowded world of ours, more than 99% of them have two ears. There are a few exceptional people, who due to injury or birth, may have one or even no ears. There are, to my knowledge, no three-eared people (Captain Kirk is unfortunately fictional, but he did have three ears: a left ear, a right ear, and a final front ear). When we take an average (add up the total number of ears that humanity possesses, and divide by the number of people), we get the sum

Slightly less than 12 billion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 billion

which is slightly less than two. This means that, as most people in the world have 2 ears, this is very slightly more than the average, so most times I would win my bet.

how does that make whites racist or even prove the relevance of FotN's statistics?

Originally posted by By Crom!
You miss the point 🙂

I could make a confident bet that you, gentle reader, have more than the average number of ears. Why? Let's assume there are six billion people in this crowded world of ours, more than 99% of them have two ears. There are a few exceptional people, who due to injury or birth, may have one or even no ears. There are, to my knowledge, no three-eared people (Captain Kirk is unfortunately fictional, but he did have three ears: a left ear, a right ear, and a final front ear). When we take an average (add up the total number of ears that humanity possesses, and divide by the number of people), we get the sum

Slightly less than 12 billion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 billion

which is slightly less than two. This means that, as most people in the world have 2 ears, this is very slightly more than the average, so most times I would win my bet.

Most people have two ears because most people are born with two ears and ear decapitation is not running rampant in the world.

As it relates to FOTN's 'most white people are racist' statements, we have no proof that most white people are indeed born (inherent) racist.

Originally posted by By Crom!
You miss the point of statistics me thinks. 🙂 Within that sample group he has a statistically significant number. The validity of that sample is something you can neither prove nor disprove. Whether that sample is representative or not is the issue. This is how market research companies can make claims like "8 out of 10 owners said there cats preferred it". 8 out of 10 owners asked said their cats preffered it, the fact we had already sent a questionaire out asking what they fed their cats was secondary etc.

Read "Lying with statistics", every Science or Social Sciences student should.

🙂

Worse than the journalists, but not quite as bad as the politicians, are the advertisers. A recent television advert for a cosmetics company, claims that their latest wrinkle removing cream satisfies 8 out of 10 of their customers, based on a survey of 134. We can perhaps excuse the small sample size, even the rounding ( 134x8/10 = 107.2), which means they must have found 0.2 of a customer to try out the cream, but the crucial question is not how many, but how did they do the survey?

It seems to me that asking 134 customers whether they like the product is dubious — if the people are already customers, and have bought the product voluntarily, perhaps it's not the fairest sample in the world. Why would anyone buy the product that doesn't like it? In most sensible scientific trials, one would hope to compare the performance of the cream objectively against a brand X cream, or a placebo, to see whether people chosen at random have had a positive effect with the cream.

This forum is not very Stats aware.

🙂

Originally posted by Robtard
Most people have two ears because most people are born with two ears and ear decapitation is not running rampant in the world.

As it relates to FOTN's 'most white people are racist' statements, we have no proof that most white people are indeed born (inherent) racist.

I guess you understood the point about an average then. ❌

Originally posted by By Crom!
Worse than the journalists, but not quite as bad as the politicians, are the advertisers. A recent television advert for a cosmetics company, claims that their latest wrinkle removing cream satisfies 8 out of 10 of their customers, based on a survey of 134. We can perhaps excuse the small sample size, even the rounding ( 134x8/10 = 107.2), which means they must have found 0.2 of a customer to try out the cream, but the crucial question is not how many, but how did they do the survey?

It seems to me that asking 134 customers whether they like the product is dubious — if the people are already customers, and have bought the product voluntarily, perhaps it's not the fairest sample in the world. Why would anyone buy the product that doesn't like it? In most sensible scientific trials, one would hope to compare the performance of the cream objectively against a brand X cream, or a placebo, to see whether people chosen at random have had a positive effect with the cream.

This forum is not very Stats aware.

🙂

And how does that have anythign to do with FOTN's claim and his lack of evidence for his self imposed factual claims?

Originally posted by By Crom!
I guess you understood the oint about an average then. ❌

"Circus comes to town, you play the lead clown..." - Metallica

How are statistics relevant here?

The sample pool is biased to begin with, the voters do not take the polls seriously (as I have demonstrated) and besides a valid world wide poll needs to have thousands of people from all over the world.

Originally posted by Robtard
Most people have two ears because most people are born with two ears and ear decapitation is not running rampant in the world.

As it relates to FOTN's 'most white people are racist' statements, we have no proof that most white people are indeed born (inherent) racist.

Indeed, we only have proof that if you don't support gay marriage you're born a biggot and a homophobe. 😛

(And that you can't thank a person as a way of insulting them, nor use the word "may" in a prefence to calling them a f*cktard, lest you be thought to be a hippocrite for ignoring your own obvious prejuidices while slyly acknowledging theirs.)

😱

Originally posted by Robtard
And how does that have anythign to do with FOTN's claim and his lack of evidence for his self imposed factual claims?

It's about using a sample to justify your comments. Now you have to provide "evidence" to refute his and prove his sample is not representative. Just saying it isn't and critiscising the methodology is not enough. Put up your evidence to provide an alternative.

🙂

That's how statistical arguments work. 🙂

Show the binomial distribution of his data is adversly skewed. Put up your error bars. 🙂 perform an ANOVA (woudn't work on this question). Do a Chi squared.

🙂

Numbers please.

Originally posted by By Crom!

Numbers please.

Earth Population 6.5 BILLION

Poll Population 150

Insufficient sample size for global generalization

Originally posted by By Crom!
It's about using a sample to justify your comments. Now you have to provide "evidence" to refute his and prove his sample is not representative. Just saying it isn't and critiscising the methodology is not enough. Put up your evidence to provide an alternative.

🙂

That's how statistical arguments work. 🙂

Show the binomial distribution of his data is adversly skewed. Put up your error bars. 🙂 perform an ANOVA (woudn't work on this question). Do a Chi squared.

🙂

Numbers please.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Indeed, we only have proof that if you don't support gay marriage you're born a biggot and a homophobe. 😛

(And that you can't thank a person as a way of insulting them, nor use the word "may" in a prefence to calling them a f*cktard, lest you be thought to be a hippocrite for ignoring your own obvious prejuidices while slyly acknowledging theirs.)

😱

Would you please show where I am/was prejuduce, a bigot or racist?