• newfie@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    I am serious that anecdotal evidence is not statistically significant and that, therefore, one random child is not representative of anything

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you only look at each individual tree as a tree, you’ll fail to realize you’re in a forest.

      • newfie@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        So if the above person was familiar with Whitmer then I should presume that most people also are?

        Your points aren’t making sense. Anecdotal evidence gathered from a non-American child’s comments on a random post on a fringe STEM-lord website is not representative of anything.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Jesus you people are insufferable. Not knowing about Whitmer is a single anecdote that is consistent with a trend that is quite obvious and so help me god if you do that sealioning bullshit demanding a peer reviewed study about Whitmers name recognition

          • newfie@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            consistent with a trend that is quite obvious

            What trend?

            sealioning

            Using terms like this makes one sound socially maladjusted. Which makes sense given the site we’re on. Which reinforces my point that a random comment has no representative value - people on here are STEM-brained weirdos or are bots. Either way, not exactly representative of the median adult US voter