Sample Size = 1ne

Of all the things rushing through my catalyzed head,
I choose now to make a note about sample size & relations.
It's an ol' saw that:
a sample size of one is not statistically significant.

Let me grant that.
The rub, I figure, is that a sample size of one
may be significant in a high degree in other ways.

Would you say there are no other ways?
I suppose that depends on whether you are from the Evidence Based School.
It's enjoying quite a ride these days - leastwise from my vantage point.
Everybody wants the evidence. The studies. From prestigious academic outfits, ideally.
But in a pinch, any academic outfit or foundation or Research Center will do.

Me? I'm kind of torn.
Is this to diminish my own, personally held views and opinions? merely because I haven't inquired of someone else and recorded their answers.
I should hope not.

I'm perhaps vane, thoughtful, over-reaching, clever, or any of these by asserting my own views,
alone as they may be,
as having some significance.
But of course they have significance.
Elsewise why carry on.

'So what significance' comes the cry?
I'll tell you what.
Virtually every creative act of every human
arose out of a conviction that a sample size of one was plenty adequate.

Digest that comprehensive assertion.

So don't be offput by stats mavens hollering the sample size is inadequate.
That's my advice.
And it's worth every nickel you paid for it.

bonsoir
M