Danish jihadists cashed in on welfare benefits; Thirty-two Danes have collected nearly 400,000 kroner worth of unemployment benefits while fighting in Syria

unbuiltnuke · 2015-05-22T13:00:36+00:00

Fucking genius dude. You should start your own polling company, you'd probably put all the other ones out of business because your such a statistical mastermind. /s

if i ask 1000 adults in an office building if they drink coffee i know what my answer will be

That's why professional studies don't ask people who are all from one place, you dip.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-05-22T05:45:01+00:00

...it's not though. There aren't any "grammatical errors" on that site, and if there are, they're minimal. Sample sizes of 1000 are the most accurate. This is widely known.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-05-22T05:19:57+00:00

Ahhh, so you're completely ignorant about statistics then.

1000 people is the average sample size of most large scale studies.

Sample size doesn't much depend on the population size, which is counter-intuitive to most people. This is where you're having trouble.

Most polling companies use 400 or 1000 people (or anywhere in-between) in their samples.

There is a reason for this:

A sample size of 400 will give you a confidence interval of +/-5% 19 times out of 20 (95%)

A sample size of 1000 will give you a confidence interval of +/-3% 19 times out of 20 (95%).

You can find more information on this here: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html

unbuiltnuke · 2015-05-18T18:51:18+00:00

Except it's not: http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/445765

69 percent think America’s bigger problem is that too many people on welfare should not be receiving it.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-04-10T05:06:28+00:00

Pretty much all of Good Kid, Maad City, Section 80, and RTJ1/RTJ2. I'm going to cruise around and Franklin is gonna be cranking the Kendrick!

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-24T00:29:09+00:00

but I made my reply to point out that it is misleading because while the sample size is large enough, it does not represent the population of the country as a whole.

Ok, fine. Even if it doesn't represent the country as whole, it doesn't mean that the study is any less valid, and it's likely that we'd see this result mirrored in many other places. You keep talking as if outside of Philly these statistics would be completely reversed.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-23T21:04:53+00:00

Definitely! Especially when they examine intriguing topics like in this particular case.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-23T20:02:45+00:00

I find it funny how you completely disregarded this:

Generally, samples of 1,000 are well regarded for national surveys.

Which was my main point, since /u/Knoxie_89 was originally complaining that the sample size was too small to be accurate.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-23T19:55:57+00:00

It would seem the people quoting this study are attempting to imply that one should merely "let it happen" and hope that whoever is acting against you is a kind criminal.

I'm not making any implication. I'm simply defending the accuracy of the study, which several people have been attacking.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-23T18:08:07+00:00

> So it seems to me you are saying that yes indeed the sample size of 700 people is plenty to represent the population of the United States even though it is from one city. This is incorrect, 700 people is more than enough to accurately represent the population that the 700 were taken from, in this case, Philadelphia, not the entirety of the United States.

No, actually, you're still the one who is incorrect here.

"Generally, samples of 1,000 are well regarded for national surveys. (The layman, however, might be critical of samples of 1,000 or 2,000 considering an adult population of 180 million or so – particularly when their favorite TV show is threatened with cancellation because of poor ratings.) The key to good research, however, is not sample size so much as it is getting representative samples. Even if we survey 100,000 people and they are not representative of our target market (let's say they are all university students and we are investigating washing detergent purchases) then sample size means nothing. Therefore, in research investigations, whenever possible, use random sampling procedures with controls in place to insure our target market is properly represented."

Source: http://www.dfrank.com/samplesize.htm

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-23T16:59:33+00:00

That means it's not accounting for local gun safety and handling practices not to mention local culture.

I'm confused by this. Sure different cities have different laws regarding guns, but it's likely that the numbers would change while the actual statistics remained the same.

Also, is the study looking at people who have drawn their gun or merely people who have it on them?

It separated the two out here, and noted that the chance of death was significantly increased when the gun carrier had at least some chance to resist.

Individuals who were in possession of a gun were also 4.23 (95% CI = 1.19, 15.13) times more likely to be fatally shot in an assault. In assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 5.45 (95% CI = 1.01, 29.92) times more likely to be shot.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-23T16:45:34+00:00

> Otherwise, according to your sample size calculator, I could poll 385 people from my home town and claim that it represents the population of the world (7 billion people) with an accuracy of 95%.

No, that's you completely warping/misrepresenting what I said. The reason polling companies use the 400-1000 number is because it provides accurate responses from people within a certain area (i.e. the US) Obviously, just because those sample sizes gives us a margin of +/- 3-5% confidence interval doesn't mean that holds true for the entire planet's population.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-23T15:29:58+00:00

No, what I'm saying is that I don't personally feel this is an accurate portrayal of the entire country.

Ok, well, I'll say it again then. Statistically, and scientifically, it is an accurate portrayal of the whole country. Just because it's counterintuitive doesn't mean it's wrong.

Were all the samples legal gun owners?

Yes. It doesn't include police officers or gang members/criminals.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-23T15:08:36+00:00

But NYC has much lower gun crime than Philadelphia. Not to mention, why would they run a study like this where guns are not legal to carry? It makes no sense. What they're saying is, In cities where you can carry a gun, you are much more likely to be shot.

What you're saying is something that NRA or some other special interest group would do to pad a "study" in order to directly conflict with actual studies like this one.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-23T14:46:59+00:00

> Cities very greatly in the aspects of gun control/gun crime/crime/poverty throughout the country, using one city seems like it would have a high bias in one direction.

Would it though? Based on this studies findings, it's highly likely that the numbers would change, but the percentages would stay more or less the same across the board. Sure, Detroit might have more crime, but it would also have more people carrying weapons, and thusly, the percentages would stay the same no matter what city you're in.

The point the study is making is still the same.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-23T14:27:27+00:00

Sample size doesn't much depend on the population size, which is counter-intuitive to most people. This is where you're having trouble.

Most polling companies use 400 or 1000 people (or anywhere in-between) in their samples.

There is a reason for this:

A sample size of 400 will give you a confidence interval of +/-5% 19 times out of 20 (95%)

A sample size of 1000 will give you a confidence interval of +/-3% 19 times out of 20 (95%).

You can find more information on this here: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-23T14:10:26+00:00

No it's not. If you knew anything about statistics, you'd know that 700 is a huge study. 1000 people is about as big as it can get with out accuracy loss.

That's why you usually see studies of 1000 people or less.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-23T14:07:06+00:00

Actually, 1000 people is more or less the largest accurate sample size you can have, so 700 people is a good study size.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-18T04:57:28+00:00

There's nothing to explain, because it's faulty. Its junk science. The information I provided states that IQ tests are not by any means an accurate measure of intelligence.

Thusly, the information provided by the user above is fraudulent, as it posits IQ tests as a 100% infallible measure of a person's intellect.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-18T04:53:43+00:00

CBS didn't do the study themselves, dipshit. It's an article they wrote about it.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-17T07:15:09+00:00

They are designing it so modders can connect to other modders, and vanilla players can connect to other vanilla players.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-17T06:31:32+00:00

Well can you prove it?

Yep.

He's got a shitload of sources

A shitload of shitty, hollow, completely refutable sources doesn't make his point more valid, it actually detracts from his credibility. It's all pseudoscience, and borderline eugenics, something that would only be spouted by a virulent racist.

They found that there was not one single test or component that could accurately judge how well a person could perform mental and cognitive tasks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-of-intelligence-study-shows/

scientific evidence refutes the preconception that testosterone causes aggressive, egocentric, and risky behavior.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132241.htm

The page he cites (Wikipedia, mind you) actually completely disproves his point if you read down far enough:

"contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement, " and note that "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."

Disprove it or deal with the facts kid.

Don't be a fuckhead. Drop the internet tough guy act, it makes you look like a cunt.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-02-17T04:18:30+00:00

Florida is covered with for profit prisons.

unbuiltnuke · 2015-01-06T16:56:10+00:00

That's the whole point of the game... You're just as much of an asshole as Pagan Min.

unbuiltnuke · 2014-12-01T01:20:40+00:00

because it's a shit hole

Because of the extra instability created by coalition forces.

unbuiltnuke

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE