I don't need to educate myself. I know what 'extrapolating data' means to polling enthusiasts. It equates to you. That doesn't equate to me, nor the rest of the country.
"Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41%
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
I don't need to educate myself. I know what 'extrapolating data' means to polling enthusiasts. It equates to you. That doesn't equate to me, nor the rest of the country.
The pro choice as never been the majority. It was 46% last July. It changes with the political climate.
that's fine, but that's not what we are arguing. I'm not going to get dragged into a merged debate on what the poll implies vs. polls and statistical sample sizes in general, the latter which bijou obviously lacks understanding of
You keep saying that in a failed attempt to ensure that your numbers can't be doubted. Deal with it - they can be, and are. That's why many of us put no stock in polls. They are deliberately misleading.
So, what did you wnt to argue about when you posted the article, exactly?
a relevant sample size is 300. you can extrapolate this to a 95% confidence level to entire nations of people.
fact.
that's why politicians at even the highest levels use them. That's why businesses, PR firms, marketting research all use polling data. Because it's relevant, factual, useful, scientific data.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
So? Hell 61% of the people in the US don't believe in biological evolution. There's a lot of mouth breathers out there Grind.
not everything I post implies I want to have an argument. I just thought it was interesting. Then we got into debating the validity of statistical sample sizes. As if 1024 doesn't speak for millions of people, when it clearly can, and does.
you don't have to tell me that twice broksi
your first response wasn't about the wording of the question, or how they weighted it, but specifically about the sample size itself, and how you don't believe 1024 can speak for a larger population. which is incorrect and false.
Your opinion is that it can speak for the entire country. You're entitled to that opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Dung is right about self identification polls. I identified myself as a really nice guy in a recent poll when we all know what an asshole I truly am.
sorry, science isn't opinion.
two arguments going on here:
1) X implies Y
2) this polling data suggests that 50% refer to themselves "pro-life"
I have never argued point #1.
Point #2 remains un-refuted, except by bijou, who does not believe in the relevance of sample sizes.
But the 'science' is no guarantee that the questions asked and answers obtained reflect the truth about a certain subject, nor is the 'science' exact, as you have already admitted, and these two salient points are why I neither rely upon nor put much stock in polls.
science. similar sample sizes used at all levels of government, marketing, and business.
the magic of sample sizes. 1024 can speak for a nation. 95% +/-4 that 50% of the nation identifies themselves as pro-life. fact.
You don't have to continue repeating it. I heard you the first two times. What your 'fact' ignores is the 'fact' that people LIE; questions and answers are deliberately framed for specific effect, and that the 'science' isn't perfect, it leaves room for error, and that plus-or-minus only ASSUMES that the other two factors are sincere and accurate.
I do have to repeat it because I am not going to let you get away with cognitive dissonance.
If people lie one could assume people lie at the same rate.
Fact.
Science.
1024 is a relevant sample size.
50% of americans identify as pro life.
Statistics.
Based on that poll, the way the question was asked, and assuming no one lied.
FACT.
also you are moving the goal posts now, as your first and primary objection was that 1024 wasn't a relevant sample size. remarking that it's "only 1024" people. Which is an ill-informed and uneducated statement.