jharkin wrote:Of course its biased.. Its limited to people who took his survey.
That alone does not necessarily bias the results of a survey. A completely random sample is, by definition, not biased in any way whatsoever. Obviously, this is very difficult to do with most populations of interest to social scientists because it requires that every member of the population have a known and equal chance of being selected for the sample, and this is impossible to do without a list. Even the U.S. Census does not provide such a list, so most samples of humans are indeed biased.
But the problem is deeper than that with Stanley's research. In order to keep their research costs down, they used a geo-demographic sampling techniques to sample areas with a high proportion of millionaires and succeeded in that regard. However, the millionaires in Stanley's study are not representative of all American millionaires, and this is easily discernible from Stanley's own book, The Millionaire Mind
. I don't have it in front of me, but the median household income of his sample was about three times higher if I recall than what the IRS said was the case for its estimates of millionaires. Taken together, it seems that the millionaires in Stanley's study were more affluent and successful in wealth building than most millionaires. That's not necessarily a fatal flaw to the research, but it certainly 'colors' his results.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings