My brain has promptly shit the bed as to what the specific term is, but it basically goes 'The likelihood of a single data point in a sample being unique or uncommon is slim to none.'
If we've stumbled across this in what amounts to a complete accident, the possibility that it's common is a very strong one.
I'm reminded of the Latin phrase "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," "false in one, false in all." In Law, it refers to the practice of dismissing a witness' testimony for one thing after they've been shown to be incorrect about another.
In your case, it could be interpreted more like "where there's one thing wrong, there are many things wrong." Just one person acting like this, openly and brazenly, is basically a guarantee there are multiple. Like roaches, or rats. There's never just one.
My brain has promptly shit the bed as to what the specific term is, but it basically goes 'The likelihood of a single data point in a sample being unique or uncommon is slim to none.'
If we've stumbled across this in what amounts to a complete accident, the possibility that it's common is a very strong one.
I'm reminded of the Latin phrase "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," "false in one, false in all." In Law, it refers to the practice of dismissing a witness' testimony for one thing after they've been shown to be incorrect about another.
In your case, it could be interpreted more like "where there's one thing wrong, there are many things wrong." Just one person acting like this, openly and brazenly, is basically a guarantee there are multiple. Like roaches, or rats. There's never just one.
I think the simpler principle is that you can't evaluate the rate of that which you can't or aren't randomly sampling.