News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on How Not to Explain Success. Parent comment

Re:How Not to Explain Success by detaro on Sunday May 29, 2016 @09:34PM (#11799094)
Not an answer, but additional info: I was curious how they found participants and looked it up in the paper: they posted their surveys on Amazon Mechanical Turk and paid participants 75 cents to complete it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Not to Explain Success by pbreit on Sunday May 29, 2016 @09:51PM (#11799128)
So all the survey subject members were Mechanical Turk users? That sounds like a terrible representation.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Not to Explain Success by Houshalter on Sunday May 29, 2016 @10:20PM (#11799207)
Sadly it's still a thousand times better than the book it's disputing, which has little or no empirical backing.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Not to Explain Success by forgotpwtomain on Sunday May 29, 2016 @11:00PM (#11799316)
Bad statistics aren't better than no statistics.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Not to Explain Success by LionessLover on Sunday May 29, 2016 @11:17PM (#11799373)
Looking at your comment I find this funny. All you make is an assertion.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Not to Explain Success by forgotpwtomain on Monday May 30, 2016 @02:40AM (#11799909)
If you take a group that's not representative of the population and you know nothing about the underlying distribution - that's not giving you better information it's just letting you be mislead into making statements which are erroneous.
[ Parent | on HN ]