This essentially. Even if there was some fundamental issue with that study, I still posted links with regard to two others performed by groups independent of the ESA who came to roughly the same average age. But I guess the CDC wouldn't know anything about getting a random sample or calculating simple averages.
How much an article about a study hurt your feelings isn't relevant to the topic at hand, nor the questions I asked you. I'd appreciate if you'd go back to my last post and answer those questions instead of trying to dodge them by bringing up things which aren't relevant. I'll reiterate the question again: what possible benefit do these three, completely independent and separate, organizations gain by lying about the average age of gamers? What motives could possibly lead a large government organization, with no stake in the gaming industry, to lie about their data for the purpose of publishing a study with an average age of gamers which closely matches the average age published by the ESA and NPD.
If you're going to maintain that all of these organizations are basically lying and making the data say what they want, then you need to explain why they could possibly want the data to say what it does. But I strongly suspect that the answer isn't that they're making the data say what they want. It's that you're trying desperately to ignore it because it doesn't say what you want it to. The fact that you would rather dodge direct questions and make unsupported allegations that the entire field of statistics is nothing but lies and misdirection only further supports this conclusion.
I don't think you understand how statistics work. If only 35% of gamers were under 18 and 65% are over 18, either that under 18 portion would have to skew significantly towards ages under 10 years old or the over 18 portion would have to be skewed somewhere under 20 years old or some other equally ridiculous number, or both, to come out to an average of 18 years old.
The idea that any one of those is true is patently absurd.
Now this one really gets my goat, and I'm probably going to stop being quite so polite here: if you're going to question my knowledge on the subject, or how much of the articles I actually read then you back it the smurf up with examples and you explain to me, in detail, what it is you think I don't have a clue about.Vivi doesn't know what he is talking about anymore than you do. He just likes to make long posts. He obviously was not even looking at the articles he posted and was just looking at the titles if he went ahead and posted that link he did.
Because if we're going to get into a discussion of who doesn't have a smurfing clue, it's laughable that the guy who thinks the entire field of statistics is bulltrout and all studies are worthless is claiming I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Your ignorance is staggering, your unwillingness to defend your positions is a waste of everyone's time, and your insulting me rather than engaging in thoughtful debate is down right offensive.
If you're not prepared to back up your position then I'll end my part in this conversation because you'll have proven that debating with you is a complete waste of everyone's time, and certainly not worth having to listen to you blatantly and baselessly insult me.
Either engage in a civil, reasoned debate or don't.




 
			
			 
					
						 
					
						 
			
 
 
					
				 Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
 Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
					


 
					
					
					
						 Reply With Quote
  Reply With Quote