Study Methodology Criticisms
Comments in this cluster repeatedly criticize scientific studies for methodological flaws such as self-reporting, selection bias, small sample sizes, and lack of generalizability or replication.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
I would take this study with a grain of salt. It relies on self-reporting.
Not convinced. What about the effect of selection bias? That done probably accounts for the entire "study"
same story yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10309249study relies on SELF REPORTING, need I say more?
Is there a link to the study? I'm curious if there was some sort of selection bias.
The study is paywalled, but since it seems to based on surveys I’ll link to an article about why research based on surveys are often bullshit:https://carcinisation.com/2020/12/11/survey-chicken/
This is weird. If you don't mind my asking, why don't you google for studies with larger scale experiments/surveys rather than using a single random data point ?Edit: yeah, that's what I thought...
With respect, your opinion is anecdotal. These things aren't always obvious, or even visible to respondants at all.I'm not saying there's no effect, just that right now this claimed finding seems contrary to the existing body of evidence.This finding may well be accurate (and the existing studies in error). Alternatively it may be a mistake. Alternatively both could be true and this survey represents a special case, some kind of selection bias.Given that this survey is ye
That study was voluntary and appears to have been advertised in a few Facebook groups. It seems quite plausible that the 95% number is artificially high due to sampling bias.
No idea about the downvote. This is a specific likely skewed sample. The study has to be reproduced on general population.
There's clear sampling bias. I read the article as a data irrelevant advertisement for the app