David Epstein wrote: > On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Beth Benoit went:
> > Didn't we conclude that Hite's data had all kinds of statistical > > problems. (Particularly her lack of random sampling?) > I've seen comments to that effect; I can't remember whether they were on > TIPS. (I search the archives for "hite" and didn't find much.) I > think you're right--Hite's findings probably can't be generalized > beyond the relatively elite population from which she sampled. As I recall, it�s a lot worse than that! It can�t be generalized *for* the population she surveyed (not �sampled�). If I remember correctly, her survey was a textbook example of how not to conduct a study. Not only did she contact specific groups and magazines for her subjects, they were self-selecting! Some study! Some �statistics�! Unfortunately some people (especially the kind of literary types who review books like those of Sherry Hite) are impressed by lots and lots of figures and the trappings of statistical procedures. (There�s nothing wrong, of course, with being a �literary type�. I just wish more of them would get to know a bit about scientific methods and logical fallacies before pontificating about the results of dubious surveys.) Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
