RE: California's Hidden Homeless/might include your nurse!

RE: California's Hidden Homeless/might include your nurse! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

bounty44 -> RE: California's Hidden Homeless/might include your nurse! (12/30/2017 6:23:24 PM)
its not really an issue of "sample size" though desi; its not a quantitative matter, its a qualitative one. think of it in reverse actually. its personal experience corroborating or being consistent with whats already generally known. that is, it puts a story to the numbers.

DesideriScuri -> RE: California's Hidden Homeless/might include your nurse! (12/30/2017 9:33:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 its not really an issue of "sample size" though desi; its not a quantitative matter, its a qualitative one. think of it in reverse actually. its personal experience corroborating or being consistent with whats already generally known. that is, it puts a story to the numbers. "generally known?" So, your experience and servantforus's experience - anecdotal though they are - is enough to generalize to data you purport exists? And, yes, sample size matters, to most, anyway.

bounty44 -> RE: California's Hidden Homeless/might include your nurse! (12/31/2017 2:12:06 AM)
desi, ive had research methods classes out the wazoo. ive done research, ive taught research and led students in their own research. sample size does not matter for qualitative purposes. its just is a simple fact of research methodology. in some research, sample sizes matter in quantitative studies where generalizability is desirable. that's not the case here. we're not looking to do that. however, for what its worth as an aside---qualitative data is generalized via methods other than sample size. and yes, "generally known"----ive posted and other people have posted here a few times the results of studies showing that conservatives donate money, and for our purposes, time, more than liberals, who do so little by comparison. so when servants experience, over a course of many years, and mine likewise, jibe with the above, its just adds a qualitative face to the quantitative data that is already out there. imagine you are taking a medicine that's been studied and the company says "20% of people who take this medicine are likely to experience this particular side effect." that's an instance of where you want a sample size adequate to meet the needs of generalizability. if there were only 5 people in the study, you'd look at the side effect pronunciation with a great deal of skepticism. if you had 300 in the study, you'd be more comfortable with it. however, people are often surprised, at how little in size samples have to be in order to meet standards for research. often times, samples as little as 30 do the trick. but when someone takes the medicine and ends up with one of the side effects and describes it, all he's doing is adding commentary to the already existing data---information that is already known. its not its own proof per se, it is its own experiential commentary.

DesideriScuri -> RE: California's Hidden Homeless/might include your nurse! (12/31/2017 6:07:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 desi, ive had research methods classes out the wazoo. ive done research, ive taught research and led students in their own research. sample size does not matter for qualitative purposes. its just is a simple fact of research methodology. in some research, sample sizes matter in quantitative studies where generalizability is desirable. that's not the case here. we're not looking to do that. however, for what its worth as an aside---qualitative data is generalized via methods other than sample size. and yes, "generally known"----ive posted and other people have posted here a few times the results of studies showing that conservatives donate money, and for our purposes, time, more than liberals, who do so little by comparison. so when servants experience, over a course of many years, and mine likewise, jibe with the above, its just adds a qualitative face to the quantitative data that is already out there. imagine you are taking a medicine that's been studied and the company says "20% of people who take this medicine are likely to experience this particular side effect." that's an instance of where you want a sample size adequate to meet the needs of generalizability. if there were only 5 people in the study, you'd look at the side effect pronunciation with a great deal of skepticism. if you had 300 in the study, you'd be more comfortable with it. however, people are often surprised, at how little in size samples have to be in order to meet standards for research. often times, samples as little as 30 do the trick. but when someone takes the medicine and ends up with one of the side effects and describes it, all he's doing is adding commentary to the already existing data---information that is already known. its not its own proof per se, it is its own experiential commentary. And a quick search will also point out that liberals donate money (I found no commentary regarding time donation for either liberals or conservatives), but do so in a different way. Conservatives donate more to churches than liberals, for instance. It was also pointed out that conservatives tend to have more money, so their relatively greater donation amounts aren't surprising. You are generalizing with your and servant's experience-based data points. Why you're doing it, I have no idea. Anything you point out with it - whether it's true or not, even - means fuckall here, on these boards. It comes off as a smug pat-yourself-on-the-back action.

bounty44 -> RE: California's Hidden Homeless/might include your nurse! (12/31/2017 7:07:05 AM)
no, in the context of research, "generalizing" means taking data from a sample, and applying it a population. that is, "what we found here in this little study with 30 people is true of people everywhere." when the study is already done, the "generalizing" has already occurred and people out there experiencing what the studies say are just putting their stories to what we already know. im not here to "pat myself on the back." what I said and what servant said was nothing more than to add flesh to what I already know and to stave off the baseless charges, as well as to address your "sample size" comments. ive said it (that conservatives are more charitable) before and ive said it in this thread because the comrade consensus is that conservatives "lack compassion." go back and read Lucy's post for example. as far as other studies claiming that what I have posted in the past isn't true, or there are alternative findings, you'd have to look at the methodology and the interpretation for each one of them to see if they hold up under scrutiny. from what ive read, im comfortable in the position ive taken both from a literature perspective and an experiential one. to bolster my contention---when you consider a fundamental difference between left and right being one of government care taking as opposed to more personal/private/charitable caretaking---the idea that liberals donate as much money and time as do conservatives, flies in their face of their worldviews. when you consider that more Christians are conservative as opposed to liberal, and charitable works and helping the poor are a part of their charter, that bolsters the contention as well. in terms of the aforementioned studies, and which ones are best indicative of reality, that's actually a topic worthy of its own thread. or if you want to do that in a back and forth via cmail, id enjoy that.

DesideriScuri -> RE: California's Hidden Homeless/might include your nurse! (12/31/2017 8:24:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 to bolster my contention---when you consider a fundamental difference between left and right being one of government care taking as opposed to more personal/private/charitable caretaking---the idea that liberals donate as much money and time as do conservatives, flies in their face of their worldviews. when you consider that more Christians are conservative as opposed to liberal, and charitable works and helping the poor are a part of their charter, that bolsters the contention as well. It doesn't fly in the face of liberal's worldview. Are donations to churches more effective at providing charity than donating directly to charity-providing organizations? I'm not sure the churches come out on top on that account. We don't disagree that liberals desire government provide more help than non-government charities. But, that doesn't mean they are any less charitable. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1100129/who-gives.pdf No difference when you control for income and "religiosity." http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/ Conservatives give 30% more, but there was no controlling for religious giving. Liberals run more foundations, control more capital and give more from those foundations. We have to come back to the question of whether or not giving to churches is on par with giving to charity-providers themselves. I saw one stat that said that only 20% of what is donated to a church actually goes towards providing charity. While I'm not supporting that statement as true, it does beg the question of how much what's donated to a church ends up as charity. If it's split 50/50, church donations shouldn't counted the same way as other donations where a much higher % of donations goes directly towards providing charity. While the first link controls for religious giving and comes out as there is no difference between the two political stances, I do think that's minimizing the impact of church giving towards charity, too.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.0546875