▲ 408 ▼ YouTube Shorts and Instagram Reels are making you dumber, according to science (www.dexerto.com) submitted 6 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@lemmy.world 44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] arcine@jlai.lu 20 points 6 months ago* (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] IratePirate@feddit.org 15 points 6 months ago* Hey there, fella! If the findings confirm my biases, sample size is irrelevant. Science has spoken! /s permalink fedilink source parent [–] zewm@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago Yea but how many likes and subscribes does it have tho? 🤔 permalink fedilink source parent [–] DonPiano@feddit.org 2 points 6 months ago No, it's not. Standard error of the mean estimate is SD/sqrt(n-1), so it depends on the signal/effect to noise ratio how much you can learn from it. SE of the mean difference for a between subjects design is slightly different but not miles off from that. You can squeeze even more info out of it by using within subjects designs. What makes you think a sample size of 50 is irrelevant? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IratePirate@feddit.org 15 points 6 months ago* Hey there, fella! If the findings confirm my biases, sample size is irrelevant. Science has spoken! /s permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zewm@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago Yea but how many likes and subscribes does it have tho? 🤔 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DonPiano@feddit.org 2 points 6 months ago No, it's not. Standard error of the mean estimate is SD/sqrt(n-1), so it depends on the signal/effect to noise ratio how much you can learn from it. SE of the mean difference for a between subjects design is slightly different but not miles off from that. You can squeeze even more info out of it by using within subjects designs. What makes you think a sample size of 50 is irrelevant? permalink fedilink source parent