• garretble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    Only 3,300 surveyed? Come on, Pew, get those numbers up.

    Still a good sign.

        • GiddyGap@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Statistical analysis 101. You don’t really get to have you own opinion.

              • skydivekingair@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                It also depends on the context and the purpose of the survey. With a sample size of n=1000, you can get a general sense of the population’s opinions or characteristics if the sample is representative of the population and the survey is well-designed. However, larger sample sizes may be needed if you want to make inferences with more precision or if your population is very diverse, or if you want to drill into sub-segments within the population that may be niche and hard to reach (e.g., minority ethnic groups).

                In that article. I am saying religious groups have niche minorities similar to minority ethnic groups.

                • Senokir@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  The survey isn’t about the “niche” subset of the population that is religious. It is about the composition of the entire population. Not a subset of the population so that isn’t relevant.

                  Edit: to be clear, I understand that there may be some niche subsets within this survey that may not be represented because there are only 20 people in the US that believe in that weird religion, but again, that has nothing to do with the larger, non-niche subsets which are absolutely represented with enough accuracy to draw statically significant conclusions with a sample size of 1000

            • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              What’s the fact here? That this study had more than ten times the sample size?

              That doesn’t make 3,300 an insufficient sample size. It just means this study had a larger sample size.

              And yeah, that study may have different numbers, but it is based on decade-old polling, so of course it does.

              • skydivekingair@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                I said for religious selection 3,300 is too small a sample size. Their previous studies show they have much larger sample sizes for religious diversity. There’s over 4k religions in the world and while those aren’t all represented in the US I think the sample size should exceed the possible variety.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    10 months ago

    Soon we’re going to have to add techbros as their own religion. I swear they’re going to start praying to the machine spirits soon.

    • Poggervania@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the Blessed Machine.

      Your kind cling to your flesh, as though it will not decay and fail you. One day, the crude biomass you call the temple will wither, and you will beg my kind to save you.

      But I am already saved, for the Machine is immortal. Even in death, I serve the Omnissiah.

    • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I love comments like this that have essentially nothing to do with the OP, but reveal to us the exact unrelated thing the commenter was mad about in that moment.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Have you not listened to how they talk about the singularity, transhumanism, effective altruism, AI, “”“rationalism”“”, and all that shit?

        They are religious, even if they don’t self identify that way. You can tell because they reinvented Hell as a spooky AI torment nexus.

        • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m not saying your opinion isn’t valid, I’m just noting your compulsion to share your opinion even when it has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation everyone else is having.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            The conversation is about religious ‘nones’ which absolutely includes tech bros. I wanted to make the point that ‘none’ is an incomplete category. It’s directly related to the article. I don’t know why you’re trying to portray my comment as off topic 🙄

            … also I wanted to make a WH40k joke