The problem is accepting results as valid to make headline news when a very small population is selected out a huge total population. Not that I needed to know that populaion is not a factor.
The article itself acknowledged selection was not random. It only took 2000 (out of about 180 millions) skewed urbanised people and the truth is out of those 2000 people, 85% said/or recorded as yes. Not what OP thinks.
its great that you're scaling back your BS on the total population size that you spent two pages arguing about (all that nonsense about the world's population etc etc) even though now and then you still drop in the total population cryptically (out of 180 million...). As far as sampling goes, they acknowledge that the polling skews urban, so what. That simply means the survey is more confidently representative of urban Pakistanies. Given that most workplaces where segregation would be an issue in the first place are actually in urban areas, and if anything the perception of urban Pakistanies is to be more liberal than their rural counterparts, it doesnt take away anything from how we interpret the results.
Argue all you want, my friend. You know you should not have come out so blatantly agreeing with and showing your gullible mind to accept a crappy ‘study’ with meaningless result ( your words).
Now bring something useful to discuss in another thread, not matter what you say means nothing to me, find the answers in my above posts if you can read and understand. No need for me to waste my time any more on you or on this so called study.
Especially when you said you will agree with the same reslts on same sample size as VALID, for the whole world population. Again, just can’t let that go. Sorry.
BTW: Just to let you know, statistical analysis LIKE THIS is NOT solid science like 2+2=4.
Yep. And you’re the one who disputes that, solely on the basis of population size. To repeat, a random sample of all over the world of 2000 people is completely valid. If you meant that we take a sample of 2000 from a small pool then apply it to the world, ofcourse thats not going to be right. But the issue there is NOT sample size, its randomness.
My words? No clue what u’re on about. I now know that you think this study is crappy, but you are yet to point us to a study of national opinion that you dont consider as crappy.
Ofcourse. Because you reject basic statistics. Thats fine, nobody can force anyone to believe in any branch of science.
They’re ‘my words’ in as much as I did not explicitly quote anyone. You were painting a misleading picture saying oh even the article itself acknowledged this and OP is saying X. No, the article is also saying X, infact the OP got it from the article :).
Oh sure, your mathematical wisdom is littered in this thread. The one thing you failed to bring though was a single national opinion poll that you had come across in your lifetime who’s results you would have accepted as valid in what it claimed to represent.
Same sample size is valid, irrespective of the total population.
Of course. Every other post you go from saying oh that statistics textbook is wrong and statistics is mumbo jumbo and statistics is not solid science to i dont reject statistics and statistics is a useful branch of mathematics.
Diwana - So your problem is with the survey results being used to make headlines? Ever follow US elections - stat polling is used to make headlines on who is going to win within the margin of error (which I pointed to you was the driving factor in sample size calculations). The results are so spot on and science of these polls is so good - the contenders don't even argue the validity.
Again you bring up size of population, which is irrelevant. The fact that Pakistan's population is 180 million or 1 trillion has no bearing - thats the beauty and science of it. Which you cant seem to grasp?
Diwana - So your problem is with the survey results being used to make headlines? Ever follow US elections - stat polling is used to make headlines on who is going to win within the margin of error (which I pointed to you was the driving factor in sample size calculations). The results are so spot on and science of these polls is so good - the contenders don't even argue the validity.
Again you bring up size of population, which is irrelevant. The fact that Pakistan's population is 180 million or 1 trillion has no bearing -** thats the beauty and science of it**. Which you cant seem to grasp?
One thing is very clear so far.
2000 people can speak for 10,000, 180 million, over 6.5 billions and even 1 trillon. Nice! :)
Abay why are you all getting your panties in a bunch? If Pakistani women feel safer in a segregated environment that is their right. Please don't behave like Molvis and force a view point down the throats of women.
