Active Users:853 Time:20/02/2026 10:48:19 AM
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 1661 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited - 29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM 1036 Views
That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM 1620 Views
Re: That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM 1002 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM 944 Views
Response to a few of your poorly researched points... - 29/10/2012 02:31:17 PM 891 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM 884 Views
Exactly... - 29/10/2012 02:39:30 PM 877 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM 902 Views
Excellent point. - 29/10/2012 08:24:37 PM 931 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM 853 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM 828 Views
Re: Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 07:07:17 AM 835 Views
I don't think it plays much role in the plot - 30/10/2012 03:17:55 PM 990 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength - 30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM 848 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population? - 29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM 791 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength? - 29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM 800 Views
Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM 895 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM 800 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not. - 30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM 893 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random. - 30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM 825 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM 823 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM 820 Views
Go read a stats text will you? - 30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM 810 Views
Done - 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM 1585 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM 1098 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM 925 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 07:14:48 PM 775 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:33:59 PM 1596 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:43:19 PM 1157 Views
Still nothing? - 10/11/2012 03:33:15 PM 942 Views
Still doesn't explain the difference - 30/10/2012 07:01:53 PM 762 Views
Re: Still doesn't explain the difference - 10/11/2012 10:21:00 PM 847 Views
Yes that totally makes sense - 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM 934 Views
Thank you! *NM* - 30/10/2012 10:19:15 AM 434 Views
That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM 876 Views
Re: That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:15:57 PM 813 Views
Who said it would? - 30/10/2012 02:44:17 PM 836 Views
let's not mix up "random" and "representative" - 30/10/2012 05:28:09 PM 886 Views
Doesn't mean RJ applied it to his series - 30/10/2012 08:23:29 AM 903 Views
But of course he did.. - 30/10/2012 02:13:07 PM 942 Views
I hate to get into these things - 29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM 977 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 962 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM 960 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM* - 29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM 502 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic... - 29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM 877 Views
You're pathetic... - 30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM 806 Views
The quote isn't specific - 30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM 920 Views
Its highly specific... - 30/10/2012 02:15:38 PM 754 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken - 30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM 1419 Views
Honestly! - 30/10/2012 02:07:37 AM 860 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM 875 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it - 30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM 819 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM 999 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM 932 Views
Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM 921 Views
Re: Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM 840 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me - 30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM 1176 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM 947 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM 817 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers - 30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM 955 Views
you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM 1095 Views
+1 *NM* - 30/10/2012 09:17:07 AM 967 Views
Re: you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 09:21:39 AM 956 Views
Not true... - 30/10/2012 11:49:57 AM 928 Views
One thing - 30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM 910 Views
That's the problem. The BC RJ has "built" has a minimum and a maximum value - 30/10/2012 05:48:55 PM 918 Views

Reply to Message