Jay Johengen
Altamahaw-Ossipee, North Carolina, United States
Having done a standard deviation or two myself, I have to agree entirely with you. I could have taken the number of times the word "the" appeared in the descriptions to "prove" a point about something. In fact, now that I think of it, I'm not sure the I saw "Foxpro" as often as I saw "Visual Foxpro." Foxpro must be dead! <g>
>The - how should I say - suspicious part is that "incredibly scientific" is meant to be an exaggeration - and one of the reasons is precisely the reason you mention: the sample is too small.
>
>Of course, there are also other problems with these "incredibly scientific" samples, even for larger samples: for example, do the people who know about the Universal Thread tend to represent an accurate cross-section of the population in general (or in this case, of the part we are interested in: potential employees)? In even the most serious statistical analysis, there can always be doubts about this particular point: how well the sample represents the total population.
>
>>You're right, I did not read well.
>>
>>>That might explain my very tongue-in-cheek title to this thread. It was not meant literally.
Previous
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only