Thursday, October 4, 2007

n=1 Is Statistically Insignificant

Approval of Bush, Congress hits new low

You read this:
WASHINGTON - Public approval for President Bush and Congress has sunk to the lowest levels ever recorded in The Associated Press-Ipsos poll.

and you might be tempted to think this was something significant.

Until you read this:
AP-Ipsos polling began in December 2003.

Got that? Their polling method has been in place less than four years. Which means that their comparisons going back to 50 years:
President Truman's approval ratings of 23 percent in both 1951 and 1952 were the lowest ever recorded by the Gallup Poll. Congress' Gallup Poll low was 18 percent in 1992.

...are specious at best, complete and utter bullshit at worst.

My favorite was this, though:
Congress' job performance was approved by just 22 percent, continuing a steady decline in the public's assessment since Democrats took over in January. Unable to force Bush to wind down the Iraq war, just a quarter of Democrats gave a thumbs-up to Congress' work, compared to a fifth of Republicans and independents.

Got that? Even though by their own polling method the Democratically controlled Congress is doing worse than President Bush; even though a full 75% of the DEMOCRATS polled don't like the job Congress is doing; it's somehow Bush's fault...

Nope, no bias here folks. Nothing to see. Ignore the liberal press behind the curtain...

2 comments:

doubletrouble said...

Jay!
I thought that I was the only person in the world who knew what "n=x" means!
At least I thought so in my last manufacturing environment. Dumbasses.
(Remember- my training is in manufacturing statistical analysis).
How about "C=0 (or any n)"?
Now I'm testing you...

& yeah, anything <3n is insignificant, more is better.

Anonymous said...

Well, reporters have been using the "worst since..." line for a long time. It's the way the nattering nabobs convey their negativity even when there is nothing negative to convey.