Oh dear. I am in a statistical mess. Quantitative analysis is not my area of expertise. Stay calm, Helen.
-
-
i.e. avoid extrapolating to the category generally — especially given the limited sample size + how the sample was obtained
-
Category of people, do you mean? I'm still not following you.
-
You get it one tweet. In need 8.
I need to work on this. Obviously. -
I have said the sample is small & also that it must be remembered that it went out in a liberal/sceptical circle.
-
Although it was posted on several academic sites, they mostly ignored &the sample is mostly ppl who follow me or Richard Dawkins on Twitter.
-
Tho that doesn't explain all the radfems.
-
Its preventing the figures from being misleading I'm worried abt rather than overstating wider significance. I have so many disclaimers.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Uhm.
Ok.
You mentioned radfems. Yet when you make a statement on qyalitative data, you must always be careful not to speak of population> -
Your sample size would be too small. So when you draw conclusions they can only be made about your respondents. Not the group "radfems" >
-
Oh yes! I don't intend to claim larger significance but I do need to say that their point of contention was gender critical radical feminism
-
Because that is what they are telling me. The views they feel the need to censor are gender critical radical feminist ones.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

