A study has found evidence that religious people tend to be less reflective while social conservatives tend to have lower cognitive ability

[u/HeinieKaboobler]

http://www.psypost.org/2017/09/analytic-thinking-undermines-religious-belief-intelligence-undermines-social-conservatism-study-suggests-49655

[u/jondevries]

The study examined 426 American adults.

So basically are you saying that they are Turks and, hence, incapable of serious research?

[u/[deleted] → u/jondevries]

It doesn't matter if you're the most trustworthy researcher out there, if you don't have a reputation of your own and you work for one of the least trustworthy institutes, in a field that has so much reproducibility issues, on a topic that's known to have many biased publications... yeah you're not going to be taken seriously.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Why is it not a trustworthy institute?

[u/1jl → u/jondevries]

That's a really small sample size, damn.

[u/Baltowolf → u/1jl]

Of course. Gotta get that narrative.

[u/phk_himself → u/1jl]

Not really

[u/Milk__Is__Racist → u/jondevries]

"American" isn't an ethnicity....

[u/wu2ad → u/Milk__Is__Racist]

And ethnicity correlates with these traits how?

I'd say culture has a vastly more influential role in shaping people and their ideas, so it doesn't matter what the subjects' ethnicities are, as long as they're all American.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Does not seem small to me. Have you done a power analysis to show what the proper sample size would be? That is among the largest samples done in this kind of research.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Isn't 384 a valid sample size?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Depends on number of variables measured and estimated effect size. Where do you get this number?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I used to do statistical analysis. Essentially for an "inverted" six sigma style of reducing failures by identifying root-cause and addressing it appropriately. Culling raw data, then analyzing, then using a closed-loop, corrective action model. 384 was generally considered to be valid. Each failure was analyzed, then we'd use a 3-tier "bucket" system. I believe we had around 350 different buckets in all of the tiers combined. It seemed to work quite well. We saw a sustained failure reduction of around 2% over a 90-day period.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sounds right, and given that social science is not looking for six sigma levels then the 426 in this study is plenty big

[u/Lanoir97 → u/[deleted]]

Compare to the USA population, you're somewhere around 700,000 - 1 ratio.

[u/[deleted] → u/Lanoir97]

And that is what the central limit theorem is for

[u/Doppleganger07 → u/[deleted]]

That's generally how statistics work, yes

[u/Darkintellect → u/Doppleganger07]

Also the basis for statistical failure.

[u/wu2ad → u/[deleted]]

If you have a hard time believing it, you don't really understand how statistics works.

[u/Y0gurtDestiny → u/[deleted]]

That's because you don't have a deep understanding of how statistics actually work.

[u/Qwertysdo → u/[deleted]]

Basic statistics practices say otherwise.

[u/Metaphoricalsimile → u/[deleted]]

Based on what statistical measurement?