The sample size is such a small percentage to the group size it can not be conclusive on any level. A quick estimation - Gen Z could account for over 1.2 billion people. The sample in the article is 1000 British people which is 0.0000833%
Though it’s unintuitive, the validity of a sample size has more to do with its literal value/size than how it compares to the total population.
If you have a sample size of 1000, your predictions about the 2000th individual in a population of 2000 will be just as accurate as your prediction about the 10,000,000th individual in a population of 10,000,000.
A bigger sample size is better, but it has almost nothing to do with the total population, it doesn’t matter if it’s 1.2 billion or 100 trillion.
you could do the same for race , sex, eye color, people who wear flip flops. If its not repeatable then its really drivel.
It sounds like your real issue is with how social sciences work and not the contents of this article.
My real issue is with false and misleading information.
What is misleading? They asked a whole lot of people a simple question then reported the results back. This is hard data that is analyzable.
The sample size is such a small percentage to the group size it can not be conclusive on any level. A quick estimation - Gen Z could account for over 1.2 billion people. The sample in the article is 1000 British people which is 0.0000833%
Though it’s unintuitive, the validity of a sample size has more to do with its literal value/size than how it compares to the total population.
If you have a sample size of 1000, your predictions about the 2000th individual in a population of 2000 will be just as accurate as your prediction about the 10,000,000th individual in a population of 10,000,000.
A bigger sample size is better, but it has almost nothing to do with the total population, it doesn’t matter if it’s 1.2 billion or 100 trillion.
Now I see that your issue is really with statistics.