Mr Prent doesn’t need a ridiculous goody two-shoes like you to interpret for him.
Now, maybe you can do what Psycho Milt evidently cannot: explain why pointing out the dishonesty and political subservience of the Grauniad makes me a believer in “Soros, the Illuminati or the Lizard People.”
Feel free to post your exposition under this. There’s a good fellow.
Perhaps you could answer PM’s first question, “Who issues these instructions to the Guardian?” Go ahead, astound me by actually answering the question instead of finding some way to wriggle out of it. Better yet, leave me absolutely gobsmacked with an answer that actually makes sense, ie doesn’t rely on some bizarre conspiracy.
So pointing out the dishonesty and the ideological subservience of the Grauniad makes me a fruitcake, does it?
I have no opinion on that.
Your comment made the claim that the Guardian follows instructions about what editorial approaches to take in its coverage. That prompted the fairly obvious, not to mention simple, question: “Who issues the instructions?” I note that you haven’t answered that question.
Unscientific: only 171 in the sample. Political polls use a thousand or thereabouts here to get the standard margin of error, so in the UK with a population fifteen times bigger the sample required is around 15000.
“Our results demonstrate that physically weak males are more reluctant than physically strong males to assert their self-interest”. I suspect their next study will discover that if you drop something, it falls down.
“so in the UK with a population fifteen times bigger the sample required is around 15000”.
Sorry Dennis but because you have a population 15 times as large doesn’t mean that the sample has to be larger to retain the same accuracy. If you think that 1,000 is enough in New Zealand it will be just as good in the UK.
“The mathematics of probability prove that the size of the population is irrelevant unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of the total population you are examining. This means that a sample of 500 people is equally useful in examining the opinions of a state of 15,000,000 as it would a city of 100,000.” https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
In neither case is your sample other than tiny compared to the population
Well, I was applying the logic of proportionality. My vague recollection from 1969 suggests you are correct and if polling practice, as defined by accepted convention, is to use around a thousand in the UK, then I take your point. In any case, as you imply, the sample they used was way too small.
I did pass the stats exam at Auckland University that year, but not by much. Mumbo jumbo was my verdict on statistics…
If you think that 1,000 is enough in New Zealand it will be just as good in the UK.
https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
This time into the yellow vest protests in France,
As ever he nails it.