Sample quality is relative. Can always say "you should studied population X" & no matter how good the sample, it's now biased wrt that pop.
-
-
Replying to @seanjtaylor
@seanjtaylor Yes, not first study to oversell but double whammy because overgeneralized framing aligns with PR needs of parent corporation.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
@zeynep@seanjtaylor incidentally, your example of election polls isn't one of random sampling--N=people home & willing to answer phone, etc2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MichelleNMeyer
@zeynep@seanjtaylor truly random sampling hard. Best recent example that comes to mind ironically mood contagion experiment.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichelleNMeyer
@MichelleNMeyer@seanjtaylor Contagion study random in terms of experimental designation, not random representation of Facebook. Different.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
@zeynep@seanjtaylor 700K were randomly selected by FB ID from among all who view FB in English--a rep sample of Englsh-viewing FB users no?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichelleNMeyer
@MichelleNMeyer@seanjtaylor "who posted one status update"2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
@zeynep@seanjtaylor course study analyzing text couldn't have been done w/users who produced no text. So results perhaps not gen to lurkers3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MichelleNMeyer
@zeynep@seanjtaylor broader point: sci is virtually never abt 1 study. All together paint picture of effect size, direction, bounds, etc.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@MichelleNMeyer @seanjtaylor Also problem isn't imperfect sample—all samples are. Misleading conclusion, crucial stuff buried in appendix.
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.