bsphil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_sampling#Quota_sampling wrote:
In quota sampling, the population is first segmented into mutually exclusive sub-groups, just as in stratified sampling. Then judgment is used to select the subjects or units from each segment based on a specified proportion. For example, an interviewer may be told to sample 200 females and 300 males between the age of 45 and 60.
It is this second step which makes the technique one of non-probability sampling. In quota sampling the selection of the sample is non-random. For example interviewers might be tempted to interview those who look most helpful. The problem is that these samples may be biased because not everyone gets a chance of selection. This random element is its greatest weakness and quota versus probability has been a matter of controversy for many years.
Nice try.
You're right nice try.
It's a freaking trade off. Random polls are unbiased but may not have a fair representation. Quota Sampling maybe biased, but they have a better representation of the population. This is why it's been in discussion for many years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_sampling#Quota_sampling wrote:
In a simple random sample ('SRS') of a given size, all such subsets of the frame are given an equal probability. Each element of the frame thus has an equal probability of selection: the frame is not subdivided or partitioned. Furthermore, any given pair of elements has the same chance of selection as any other such pair (and similarly for triples, and so on). This minimises bias and simplifies analysis of results. In particular, the variance between individual results within the sample is a good indicator of variance in the overall population, which makes it relatively easy to estimate the accuracy of results.
However, SRS can be vulnerable to sampling error because the randomness of the selection may result in a sample that doesn't reflect the makeup of the population. For instance, a simple random sample of ten people from a given country will on average produce five men and five women, but any given trial is likely to overrepresent one sex and underrepresent the other. Systematic and stratified techniques, discussed below, attempt to overcome this problem by using information about the population to choose a more representative sample.
SRS may also be cumbersome and tedious when sampling from an unusually large target population. In some cases, investigators are interested in research questions specific to subgroups of the population. For example, researchers might be interested in examining whether cognitive ability as a predictor of job performance is equally applicable across racial groups. SRS cannot accommodate the needs of researchers in this situation because it does not provide subsamples of the population. Stratified sampling, which is discussed below, addresses this weakness of SRS.
If you were to read the page on Statistical sampling, you'll see that there are VARIOUS ways of sampling and they exist because there are pros and cons for each one.
Your argument is that you DON'T do that and you're wrong. I didn't argue that there weren't any drawbacks. So unless you're arguing that random polls are perfect (which you already admitted that they weren't), you have nothing to respond with other than "I'm wrong".
Bsphil wrote:
I know. Once again, looking only for a majority is stupid, that's why I keep saying you're stupid for focusing so intently on the less important info.
That's only if you're claiming that there is a majority. If you're not going to claim that the majority of the U.S. believes one way or the other, then it doesn't matter. That's not the scenario. You claimed that it was fairly split with a slight favor towards SSM. Belkira argued that majority of the U.S. supports SSM. So, how can you use the "majority", but not want to know what the majority is? So, it's ok just to say "it's the majority" without actually knowing if it's true or not? Interesting..
Bsphil wrote:
Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night, I guess.
I don't have to say anything. Your comedic behavior is all I need to laugh myself to sleep.
It must feel real bad to get pwned by an idiot. I know it hurts...