So I was flipping through the book when I noticed this quote:
"I've got a couple of Chinese students in my classes. They're both hard-working and get good grades. I suppose all Chinese are like that." (pg 287)
The book describes this quote as a hasty generalization using anecdotal evidence. It basically explains why we have to take in consideration the sample size when make statements like this. Generally, the bigger the sample size, the more accurate the generalization will be. apparently, "1,500 is typically adequate for the sample size when surveying all adults in the U.S." (pg 288) Now this just might be me, but 1,500 people sounds way too small of a sample to represent the entire U.S. population. With such a small number, you could easily distort the sample. For example, let's pretend I'm doing a survey of the average American's political views. My sample size is 1,500 people and I decide I'm going to ask 1,500 people in San Francisco about their political views. So I take this data and say, "This is the political view of an average American." Of course, since my sample size is only San Franciscans, I am most likely going to get a political view heavily skewing towards liberal. I forgot what else I had to say but basically the point is 1,500 is way too small a number to represent America as a whole but if you're going to use it, you're going to have to make sure your sample is diverse so you don't end up skewing towards a specific result.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like how you started this post because you give readers an idea of how you came up with the topic you were about to discuss. You did not go straight into the explanation. I like how you tell us what the quote was, which was a hasty generalization using anecdotal evidence. I also like how you tell us that the bigger the sample size the more accurate the generalization will be. That was very clear. You break down the example in a very good way. You relate the concept to the example. I agree that 1500 is too small to be a sample of the US. I like the example you give.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was trying to write about this for my own blog I was a little confused on the concept myself. I should have read your blog before I had written mine. The way that you open your blog hooked me in and made me want to read more. Giving the background information helped as well to make it not so overwhelming. Then slowing brought in the explanation of the concept. the analysis of the concept was good as well. it was very easy to follow and relate. You are right that the same size is way too small for the population of the U.S. Very nice job on the blog.
ReplyDeleteWow, this post is very interesting! It actually made me want to read more, especially since you are talking about the generalization that Asians are smart, and because I, myself, am Asian. Many people just assume that all Asians are smart just because the majority of the Asians they know are hard-working and get good grades. However, that’s not always the case. When I was a freshmen in highschool, I remember someone coming up to me, asking for help on their math hw, and I realized that the math class they were taking is even higher than the math class I was taking! Just because I am Asian and “look smart,” they just categorized me under “smart asian” and approached me for help. It’s kind of funny, but definitely not an accurate generalization because the sample size is too small. Overall, great post! Keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete