Social As NBA ratings mysteriously fall, UFC ratings rise.

Btw, you can run into problems when the samples are genuinely too small. But this is statistically easy to ascertain. It becomes a major problem in social scientific experiments when you have studies based on 20-50 people. Reputable polling organizations, by contrast, use as standard procedure sample sizes that are way over the statistical baselines, and have a defined scope of error for sample size that is very very small. They know math and they follow basic rules when they conduct these things.
 
Zankou said:
I’ll make it simple, since I’ve litigated in this area for many years, both attacking and defending top experts in the field.

There are many many ways a poll can be deficient or have severe bias, causing it to be non-representative.

That said, *sample size* is almost never the issue. For the mathematically illiterate, it seems very surprising that one can extrapolate from a couple thousand test samples to a population. But from a statistical perspective, that is almost never a problem because the chance of the sample being *non-representative* very quickly becomes vanishingly small.

A vastly more serious problem, for example, is the source of the samples. To illustrate, if you use a telephone poll, you are potentially introducing significant distortion. That won’t change if you poll 6000 or sixty million.

‘Small sample’ is the #1 critique that people normally make when they don’t understand anything about how polls work from a scientific perspective, and are just reacting to them from a ‘common sense intuition’ perspective.
Click to expand...
But it was never reveled what demographic that interviewed. And when it comes to something like opinions on why they've stopped watching a show, the answers can vary dramatically, so a larger sample size would for sure help. Again you sound so pretentious and ironically criticize me for my "common sense" approach when you seem to using none. 2000 people in this type of poll is not an accurate measuring tool on the opinions of Millons lol
 
Zankou said:
Btw, you can run into problems when the samples are genuinely too small. But this is statistically easy to ascertain. It becomes a major problem in social scientific experiments when you have studies based on 20-50 people. Reputable polling organizations, by contrast, use as standard procedure sample sizes that are way over the statistical baselines, and have a defined scope of error for sample size that is very very small. They know math and they follow basic rules when they conduct these things.
Click to expand...
So you can see why 2,000 people for a poll meant to represent a multi million viewer audience might not be the most accurate? Idek why I was challenged on this. Thats way too small of a sample size, that's obvious
 
Willy Knuckles said:
So you can see why 2,000 people for a poll meant to represent a multi million viewer audience might not be the most accurate? Idek why I was challenged on this. Thats way too small of a sample size, that's obvious
Click to expand...

Look, I can’t help you at this point. The Cliffs here are that this poll may have significant problems in how it was structured. We don’t know that, without examining the poll structure and response coding in detail. Which would be boring AF btw, I have dealt with it many times.

Sample size, however, is neither the problem nor the fix for those potential deficiencies. Put another way, poll 100x as many people, it wouldn’t fix such problems and would do almost nothing from a statistical perspective to make it more accurate. Once you get over a certain threshold sample size is almost never the problem. You don’t have to accept this poll as accurate, since polls can and should be critiqued, but you are barking up the wrong tree as to the potential problems.
 
Zankou said:
Look, I can’t help you at this point. The Cliffs here are that this poll may have significant problems in how it was structured. We don’t know that, without examining the poll structure and response coding in detail. Which would be boring AF btw, I have dealt with it many times.

Sample size, however, is neither the problem nor the fix for those potential deficiencies. Put another way, poll 100x as many people, it wouldn’t fix such problems and would do almost nothing from a statistical perspective to make it more accurate. You don’t have to accept these poll reports as accurate, polls can and should be critiqued, but you are barking up the wrong tree as to the potential problems.
Click to expand...
I guess I gotta agree to disagree. It seems like you're saying sample size is irrelevant except if the sample size is ridiculously small. I'm asserting that 2000 people in this type of poll is a ridiculously small sample size. Seems like the bigger issue is people posting any kind of poll or "stats" they can find as fact, and it goes un challenged or the goal post gets moved instead of calling out the person for presenting these things as fact. Like I said though, I'll just agree to disagree
 
Zankou said:
Look, I can’t help you at this point. The Cliffs here are that this poll may have significant problems in how it was structured. We don’t know that, without examining the poll structure and response coding in detail. Which would be boring AF btw, I have dealt with it many times.

Sample size, however, is neither the problem nor the fix for those potential deficiencies. Put another way, poll 100x as many people, it wouldn’t fix such problems and would do almost nothing from a statistical perspective to make it more accurate. Once you get over a certain threshold sample size is almost never the problem. You don’t have to accept this poll as accurate, since polls can and should be critiqued, but you are barking up the wrong tree as to the potential problems.
Click to expand...

2,000 people out of 330 million people is literally 0.00061% of the population. That is extremely small and almost irrelevant to the population. Regardless of what you're saying I'm going to have to side with @Willy Knuckles on this.

But I get what you're saying. There's no real definite way of making a poll accurate. If you poll people in LA, you're going to get a different opinion than people polled in Utah.

Hence the reason people of all sorts need to take polls with a grain of salt.
 
Kandyland said:
2,000 people out of 330 million people is literally 0.00061% of the population. That is extremely small and almost irrelevant to the population. Regardless of what you're saying I'm going to have to side with @Willy Knuckles on this.

But I get what you're saying. There's no real definite way of making a poll accurate. If you poll people in LA, you're going to get a different opinion than people polled in Utah.

Hence the reason people of all sorts need to take polls with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

All I can say is look into statistics. To the layman it seems surprising that a small randomly selected segment of a population would be representative. Mathematically, however it’s just basic math. Almost all experimental science is conducted on minuscule sample sets relative to its extrapolation.

Otherwise every time you ran a study on lab mice you could object ‘but we only tested 600 mice, and there are 600 billion of them.’ As soon as you pass a very low statistical threshold that becomes meaningless. The actual issue is sample selection, not sample size. The same holds true across all experimental design. You are almost always testing only a minute fraction of the total subject that you are extrapolating to. Generally that is not a problem unless you are running extremely tiny sample sizes, like 20-40.

And again, if you do have a sample selection problem, then taking 50x more of those samples will do fuck all to address or resolve it. It’s a different issue.

This is all to say that sample size often jumps out at people as the problematic part, when scientifically it is actually very easy to calculate and control for sample size. In polling, your problem is not that 200,000 people would give markedly different results than 2,000. It’s that you are only asking a distorted subset of people, or that your questions are leading, or that you are asking about subjects that are not easily assessed by the subjects (for example, their future intentions, as with voting).
 
Kandyland said:
2,000 people out of 330 million people is literally 0.00061% of the population. That is extremely small and almost irrelevant to the population. Regardless of what you're saying I'm going to have to side with @Willy Knuckles on this.

But I get what you're saying. There's no real definite way of making a poll accurate. If you poll people in LA, you're going to get a different opinion than people polled in Utah.

Hence the reason people of all sorts need to take polls with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

It does seem like too insignificant of a sample size, but it's not. My statistics class back in college was one of the more interesting classes I took. Lots of smart people really good at math have spent a lot of time perfecting this stuff.
 
moosaev said:
Lol so why did the KC crowd rain down boos on the players that interlocked arms? It was never about kneeling or disrespecting the flag, people in this country get pissed whenever there is acknowledgement that racism exists. That’s what’s it’s all about. The anthem/flag is just a smokescreen.

Also, UFC has been throwing Trump in everybody s face. Dana literally speaks at his rallies, the other day Cejudo, Gaethje, Ali, Covington and Dana attended a rally and broadcast pictures of that. How is that not shoving it in their viewers faces?
Click to expand...
Theres a difference between a few fighters going to support the president they love, and the entire organization painting BLM on the canvas, openly speaking about it during the broadcasts, wearing names of people on their helmets, wearing SJW slogans on their jerseys, and making a spectacle out of the national anthem for “protests”. If u don’t see which side is trying to brainwash and guilt trip hardwork americans, then ur blind.
 
Staph infection said:
Was there racial inequality in the Jacob Blake incident? Do you think the cops would not have shot a white guy that did what Jacob Blake did?
Click to expand...

No idea, didn't follow the case. What does it have to do with people fighting for racial equality?
 
MustangCobraSVT said:
No idea, didn't follow the case. What does it have to do with people fighting for racial equality?
Click to expand...
Jacob Blake is a person they are using to push this agenda when his case was not him being targeted because he was black.
 
Staph infection said:
Jacob Blake is a person they are using to push this agenda when his case was not him being targeted because he was black.
Click to expand...

I don't understand, so the NBA players are using bad information to push for racial equality? Why does that matter, isn't pushing for racial equality a good thing?
 
I choose to not watch these political activists bounce their ball, or run down a field.

That’s great if others do. I could care less.
 
I tune out when the NBA tells the refs to start controlling the games/outcomes like the last two nights.
 
Kandyland said:
2,000 people out of 330 million people is literally 0.00061% of the population. That is extremely small and almost irrelevant to the population. Regardless of what you're saying I'm going to have to side with @Willy Knuckles on this.

But I get what you're saying. There's no real definite way of making a poll accurate. If you poll people in LA, you're going to get a different opinion than people polled in Utah.

Hence the reason people of all sorts need to take polls with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

330 Million is not the population being studied. I believe the NBA has like 9 million regular viewers. This is a HUGE difference. 2000 would be too small a sample size for the total population of the US, but not so much if the poll is trying to extrapolate data for NBA viewers.
 
NBA allowed politics to enter its product, as has the NFL. I think lots of people will tune out of the UFC in the near now after Colby's rant after he won the fight pissed them off. The UFC should be careful considering the recent spat with Colby and Tyron if they don't want to end up in the same predicament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,064
Messages
55,464,620
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top