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
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
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
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

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

  • 682

    Posts

  • 6K

    Comments