▲ 529 ▼ Women are less likely to receive CPR in public than men: Study (www.yahoo.com) submitted 2 years ago by ZeroCool@feddit.ch to c/news@lemmy.world 272 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world -24 points 2 years ago (4 children) This isn't a pole. This isn't self reported numbers. Those are real life numbers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It is still a sample, which is therefore subject to a margin of error. Unless you think this data accounts for all CPR given anywhere to anyone, ever. For example, if they'd only sampled one man and one woman, and the man reported receiving CPR and the woman reported not, the "study" would show 100% of men and 0% of women receive CPR. Staggering "real-life numbers"! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] DeadDjembe@lemmy.ml -10 points 2 years ago (1 child) All of science is just a sample. Population trends can be observed in smaller subsets. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago I'm aware. My point is that "real life numbers" still have margins of error. The person to whom I'm responding implied that "real life numbers" aren't subject to a margin of error. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ChewTiger@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago Pretty much all data has margins of error, including "real life data". The margin of error just often doesn't matter. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 14 points 2 years ago* But is it a poll? permalink fedilink source parent [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) It doesn't matter, a margin of error exists regardless of the data source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) To add to your point with a very clear example: If I did a study to check the average age of people in a country where I mainly checked the age of people living in retirement homes, the margin of error would be huge even if I got the age from hundreds of thousands of people. In more general terms: there can be systemic errors due to methodology that no increasing of the number of samples will remove. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago Thank you, that's an important point to make. There's this belief that big samples are more relevant than small samples, but that is far from the truth. The methodology is what's vital to the data's significance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It is still a sample, which is therefore subject to a margin of error. Unless you think this data accounts for all CPR given anywhere to anyone, ever. For example, if they'd only sampled one man and one woman, and the man reported receiving CPR and the woman reported not, the "study" would show 100% of men and 0% of women receive CPR. Staggering "real-life numbers"! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] DeadDjembe@lemmy.ml -10 points 2 years ago (1 child) All of science is just a sample. Population trends can be observed in smaller subsets. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago I'm aware. My point is that "real life numbers" still have margins of error. The person to whom I'm responding implied that "real life numbers" aren't subject to a margin of error. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] DeadDjembe@lemmy.ml -10 points 2 years ago (1 child) All of science is just a sample. Population trends can be observed in smaller subsets. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago I'm aware. My point is that "real life numbers" still have margins of error. The person to whom I'm responding implied that "real life numbers" aren't subject to a margin of error. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago I'm aware. My point is that "real life numbers" still have margins of error. The person to whom I'm responding implied that "real life numbers" aren't subject to a margin of error. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ChewTiger@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago Pretty much all data has margins of error, including "real life data". The margin of error just often doesn't matter. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 14 points 2 years ago* But is it a poll? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) It doesn't matter, a margin of error exists regardless of the data source. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) To add to your point with a very clear example: If I did a study to check the average age of people in a country where I mainly checked the age of people living in retirement homes, the margin of error would be huge even if I got the age from hundreds of thousands of people. In more general terms: there can be systemic errors due to methodology that no increasing of the number of samples will remove. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago Thank you, that's an important point to make. There's this belief that big samples are more relevant than small samples, but that is far from the truth. The methodology is what's vital to the data's significance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) To add to your point with a very clear example: If I did a study to check the average age of people in a country where I mainly checked the age of people living in retirement homes, the margin of error would be huge even if I got the age from hundreds of thousands of people. In more general terms: there can be systemic errors due to methodology that no increasing of the number of samples will remove. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago Thank you, that's an important point to make. There's this belief that big samples are more relevant than small samples, but that is far from the truth. The methodology is what's vital to the data's significance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago Thank you, that's an important point to make. There's this belief that big samples are more relevant than small samples, but that is far from the truth. The methodology is what's vital to the data's significance. permalink fedilink source parent