How about this article re-titles itself 'the politics of innovation in the United States'
The article first sets out to tell you that out of the entire population the innovators are those that they have chosen, which amounts to 3%, of 1% of 1% of the total. 900 Innovators in the entire US. If they changed that number to say 1 in 100 people were innovators (probably closer to the actual), then cut out children you end up with about 1 or 2 million innovators and the demographics of that set begin to look a lot different.
// most ppl believe anything that comes from a 'study'...
That's a little unfair to the authors. Quoting the article:
>In total, 6,418 innovators were contacted for this report, and 923 provided viable responses. This diverse, yet focused sampling approach enables a broad, yet nuanced examination of individuals driving innovation in the United States.
You can read the report for further elaboration, but basically, they counted the ones they could and acknowledged possible sample biases.
Biased sample? Possibly. Can we blame the authors for not holding a gun to the ~6000's heads? Probably not.
The article first sets out to tell you that out of the entire population the innovators are those that they have chosen, which amounts to 3%, of 1% of 1% of the total. 900 Innovators in the entire US. If they changed that number to say 1 in 100 people were innovators (probably closer to the actual), then cut out children you end up with about 1 or 2 million innovators and the demographics of that set begin to look a lot different.
// most ppl believe anything that comes from a 'study'...