Napkin maths puts 800 people at a 95% confidence interval of ±3 percentage units. Even the lowest end of that, 12% of the population, is still massively problematic and has to be tackled. People are being killed.
Using 800 to estimate 59,095,757 people’s views doesn’t seem very credible to me, personally, but that aside what exactly are you proposing? Is it just anti-jewish commentary and ideology that needs to be cracked down on or is it also mentions of Israel? Who gets to decide the distinction?
This isn’t exactly a new problem so don’t expect raising awareness to magically solve it.
If you do random sampling right the total population size doesn’t really matter. If it’s ~15% of a random sample of 800 it will in all likelihood be ~15% of a random sample of 800 000 as well. With 97& confidence, that is.
There are other ways this could be flawed (I haven’t looked into it), but statistical sampling works independent of population size.
But the problem is it’s randomized, with a minor bias towards the ones available to poll and the ones who actually respond to it. There is an equal chance that all 800 were statistical outliers as there is a chance 0 were, and every possible combination between the two. 95% ±3 means more than 1 in 20 such studies (if the study were repeated in large number) could be completely bogus and 97% means 1 in 33.
There is an equal chance that all 800 were statistical outliers as there is a chance 0 were
This does not hold. Most people are not statistical outliers, so it is highly unlikely that 100% are outliers. Likewise, more than 1 in 800 are outliers, so if you had none of them in your sample it would not be representative.
As for the 1 in 20 critique: welcome to social sciences. This is why survey studies need to be pre-registered, hypotheses need to be clearly formalized before being tested, and everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt. For opinion polls, it means that we need to take error margins very seriously, and make all effort we can to ensure representative samples. And it’s still hard. We know all that. But your criticism is still nonsensical.
Napkin maths puts 800 people at a 95% confidence interval of ±3 percentage units. Even the lowest end of that, 12% of the population, is still massively problematic and has to be tackled. People are being killed.
Using 800 to estimate 59,095,757 people’s views doesn’t seem very credible to me, personally, but that aside what exactly are you proposing? Is it just anti-jewish commentary and ideology that needs to be cracked down on or is it also mentions of Israel? Who gets to decide the distinction?
This isn’t exactly a new problem so don’t expect raising awareness to magically solve it.
If you do random sampling right the total population size doesn’t really matter. If it’s ~15% of a random sample of 800 it will in all likelihood be ~15% of a random sample of 800 000 as well. With 97& confidence, that is.
There are other ways this could be flawed (I haven’t looked into it), but statistical sampling works independent of population size.
But the problem is it’s randomized, with a minor bias towards the ones available to poll and the ones who actually respond to it. There is an equal chance that all 800 were statistical outliers as there is a chance 0 were, and every possible combination between the two. 95% ±3 means more than 1 in 20 such studies (if the study were repeated in large number) could be completely bogus and 97% means 1 in 33.
This does not hold. Most people are not statistical outliers, so it is highly unlikely that 100% are outliers. Likewise, more than 1 in 800 are outliers, so if you had none of them in your sample it would not be representative.
As for the 1 in 20 critique: welcome to social sciences. This is why survey studies need to be pre-registered, hypotheses need to be clearly formalized before being tested, and everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt. For opinion polls, it means that we need to take error margins very seriously, and make all effort we can to ensure representative samples. And it’s still hard. We know all that. But your criticism is still nonsensical.
Seems like a lot of words to not disagree with anything I said.
I think everything you’ve said about this has been pretty ignorant, my dude.
Ad hominem
this isn’t unique or special at all, you just need to do some research on this although the other guy is explaining it really well