You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
111 points

n = 40, this is junk. they couldn’t even get 100 people for this?

these were all sampled from 1 company in amsterdam. the differences could be explained by company culture, or local culture, or whatever. more work needed.

permalink
report
reply
29 points

n=40 isn’t actually bad for generalized conclusions, given a reasonable spread in the results. Your second point is a much stronger argument. The sample is entirely non-representative.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

IIRC from stats n=32 is generally considered the minimum to be considered representative for a random sample (and this is not a random sample outside of the company in Amsterdam 🙄).

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I don’t think you’re disagreeing with the parent poster…

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

That’s very concrete language you’re using there. Are you perchance an introvert? We could make it n = 41 and add a dash more selection bias to boot!

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Shitty sample sizes are the majority of “research” nowadays. It’s sad how hard it is to find any even in the triple digits.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

anything with personality types i already assume is junk. might as well use their zodiac sign.

permalink
report
parent
reply

science

!science@lemmy.world

Create post

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<— rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

Community stats

  • 2.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 683

    Posts

  • 6K

    Comments