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
The Bell Curve revisited
- 29/10/2012 09:44:09 AM
1811 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited
- 29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM
1174 Views
That's incorrect...
- 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM
1743 Views
Re: That's incorrect...
- 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM
1134 Views
Re: That's incorrect...
- 29/10/2012 10:40:27 AM
977 Views
Re: That's incorrect...
- 29/10/2012 10:42:57 AM
963 Views
Hehe...There are a few disputing it vocally. Whether they're in their right mind, well...
- 29/10/2012 10:45:07 AM
1078 Views
Re: Hehe...There are a few disputing it vocally. Whether they're in their right mind, well...
- 29/10/2012 10:49:49 AM
965 Views
Re: Hehe...There are a few disputing it vocally. Whether they're in their right mind, well...
- 29/10/2012 10:56:37 AM
1050 Views
It's only as skewed as it seems when you make the assumption that the Forsaken
- 31/10/2012 04:34:11 AM
1315 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right...
- 29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM
1078 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right...
- 29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM
1001 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this
- 29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM
1028 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this
- 29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM
966 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role
- 30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM
959 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength
- 30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM
958 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population?
- 29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM
900 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength?
- 29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM
922 Views
Absolutely no reason...
- 30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM
1020 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason...
- 30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM
933 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not.
- 30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM
1021 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random.
- 30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM
945 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample!
- 30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM
934 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample!
- 30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM
926 Views
Go read a stats text will you?
- 30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM
918 Views
Done
- 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM
1727 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent...
- 10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM
1227 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent...
- 11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM
1046 Views
Seriously? I went and looked at some statistics books, and you won't even reply?
- 01/11/2012 12:13:49 PM
1039 Views
Yes that totally makes sense
- 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM
1044 Views
- 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM
1044 Views
That's not what happened...
- 30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM
1023 Views
I hate to get into these things
- 29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM
1109 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
1093 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed
- 29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM
1089 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM*
- 29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM
568 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic...
- 29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM
1020 Views
You're pathetic...
- 30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM
931 Views
The quote isn't specific
- 30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM
1054 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken
- 30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM
1552 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed
- 29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM
995 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it
- 30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM
948 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame?
- 30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM
1150 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame?
- 30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM
1077 Views
Are you sure about that?
- 30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM
1052 Views
Re: Are you sure about that?
- 30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM
968 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me
- 30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM
1306 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola
- 30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM
1073 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola
- 30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM
941 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers
- 30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM
1112 Views
Re: We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers
- 31/10/2012 12:30:52 AM
1050 Views
A handful of examples are all we have and we have proof that an extremely strong Channeler
- 31/10/2012 02:58:57 AM
922 Views
you're confusing 2 things
- 30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM
1240 Views
One thing
- 30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM
1033 Views
That's the problem. The BC RJ has "built" has a minimum and a maximum value
- 30/10/2012 05:48:55 PM
1053 Views
