Jump to content

Recommended Posts



--- --- ---



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a very simple way to calculate how big of a sample you need.  Ready?

There are four things you need.
1) Population size
2) An acceptable margin of error.  A margin of error of +/- 5% can be expressed mathematically as .05.
3) How confident you want to be that the actual result falls within your confidence interval.  This corresponds to a z-score on a normal distribution.  Want a confidence level of 99%?  99% of data in a normal distribution fall below the z-score of 2.576 (the +2.576th standard deviation from the mean).
4) How much variation you expect in your data.  A safe one to use is a standard deviation of .5, which ensures a large enough sample.

The equation to figure out needed sample size is this:

Minimum Sample Size = (Confidence Interval)^2 *(StDev)(1-StDev)/ (Margin of Error)^2

which if you wanted a +/-5% margin of error, a confidence level of 99%, and a standard deviation of .5 would be

Minimum Sample Size = 2.576^2 * (.5)(.5) / (.05)^2 = 663.6 = ~664.

That is pretty much what EVERYBODY says regardless of whether they did or not.  You are personally invested in thinking you are not screwed up and don't have personality defects.

Not to mention that people who do turn out okay do so DESPITE it, and often because they realize in retrospect it was enormously abusive and do the work of fixing what went wrong in therapy and such.

Not only is 'positive' punishment (called that because in theory a response produces a stimulus and that response decreases in probability in the future in similar circumstances) STUPIDLY ineffective compared to positive reinforcement, particularly before age 12 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925104309.htm , let's be honest:  if you wouldn't hit your friends, your spouse, or your dog to make them not do something, why would you hit your child?

- The greater the number of studies, the less likely this is to be true, especially when you get into the thousands
- Each and every study is (in theory) checked for methodological soundness, including a representative sample, proper experimental design, and proper experimental/survey methodology
- 'Publication bias' is just a nebulous term for what happens when the research that is readily available differs in its results from the results of all the research that has been done in an area, which is a hazard when you get things like paywalls (and this is why I hate scientific publishers and support open access to scientific publications).

Here is a paper on common pitfalls:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3868184/

You also have the right to believe in the existence of unicorns and angels and pixies, despite the fact that there is literally no reason to think they exist and no evidence to support their existence (I'll see your (insert thing you believe in here like a god, an angel, a fairy, a ghost, or a pixie) and raise you an invisible rainbow lobster.  Ask yourself why you don't believe in this invisible rainbow lobster).  But that doesn't make them exist, no matter how much your friends or your pastor or your guru or your parents say they do.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia: "Kathrin Romary Beckinsale was born in Chiswick, London, England ... Beckinsale was educated at Godolphin and Latymer School, an independent (fee-paying) school for girls located in Hammersmith, West London ... read French and Russian literature at New College, Oxford."

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, the world has only one example of a major radiation
release into a thriving ecosystem. The pine forest downwind of
Chernobyl died and turned a ginger-brown color; it is known
today as the “Red Forest.” Animals moved into the exclusion
zone as humans left it, and while the mutation rate is certainly
higher than usual, most of the mutations are less viable than
normal creatures and have died off rather than passing on
their modified genes. The wildlife population was much more
badly affected by trying to coexist with humans than it is now
by the radiation.


Most mammals react to radiation in roughly the same way
as humans, but other species have highly variable tolerances.
Birds have nested in the remains of the reactor building, and
while some have stunted tail-feathers, most look quite normal.
Decay organisms seem to be very bad at coping with radiation,
so dead animals and plants lie where they have fallen,
rotting only very slowly. Some fungi have mutated to produce
melanin and feed off residual radiation in the reactor core.
Some bacteria, such as deinococcus radiodurans, can withstand
hundreds of thousands of rads.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...