2 ms·

I think you should first try to understand people at the individual level and only then understand them in aggregate, and you seem to want to skip that first st

I think you should first try to understand people at the individual level and only then understand them in aggregate, and you seem to want to skip that first step. Because otherwise you're just going on your own biases and what other people have told you. It's like I didn't understand blues music very well until I realized that they put a lot of feeling into how they placed each specific note, more so than other genres I've heard. But if you don't know to listen to that, you don't understand what they're trying to say. Groups of people talk in different ways like that, too. It's easy to listen to them and assume they're saying nothing of value, but perhaps they're communicating something you haven't learned to listen to yet.

coldtea 7y ago
>I think you should first try to understand people at the individual level and only then understand them in aggregate, and you seem to want to skip that first step. You try to understand people at the individual level not "at first", but always -- when dealing with them individually. For any other type of dealing (social, political, organizational, etc) you must try to understand people at various aggregate levels. Here's a company analogy. If you do customer support, treat customers as individual people. But if you plan your next releases features, you need to think about demographics and what different user categories want. And if you plan to open a store, you need to think of the aggregate patterns in the area (average spending, shopping behaviors, etc).
- asdfman123 7y ago
  You can look at hard data and form models about groups (e.g. perhaps to best market to them), but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. And of course, it is often important to group and categorize people to think about them. I'm not disagreeing with that. I don't think anyone reasonably intelligent could disagree with that. Let me put it this way: I'm a classic overanalyzer and I've found while I'm very good at analyzing and theorizing, if I do not have a rock-solid foundation for my premises my theories can be shockingly wrong. If someone snubs me in public I can create quite elaborate theories about why they are the way they are, but if I simply check with them to see if my premises are true I find that maybe they just didn't see me. of course, that's kind of a silly example, but the same goes for any kind of analysis. That's why you talk to people -- to test out your premises to see if they're really true. Because otherwise, when you analyze people, what are you really basing it on? A completely neutral, objective assessment based on data with an understanding that it paints multiple pictures? Or is it a passing value judgement when the data can be interpreted many different ways? To understand a subculture, you have to first understand that subculture. You don't only have to talk to people -- you can also read and think about their beliefs in good faith. But if you don't do either, you are essentially arguing with the title of the news article without reading the explanation!

coldtea 7y ago

>I think you should first try to understand people at the individual level and only then understand them in aggregate, and you seem to want to skip that first step. You try to understand people at the individual level not "at first", but always -- when dealing with them individually. For any other type of dealing (social, political, organizational, etc) you must try to understand people at various aggregate levels. Here's a company analogy. If you do customer support, treat customers as individual people. But if you plan your next releases features, you need to think about demographics and what different user categories want. And if you plan to open a store, you need to think of the aggregate patterns in the area (average spending, shopping behaviors, etc).

asdfman123 7y ago
You can look at hard data and form models about groups (e.g. perhaps to best market to them), but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. And of course, it is often important to group and categorize people to think about them. I'm not disagreeing with that. I don't think anyone reasonably intelligent could disagree with that. Let me put it this way: I'm a classic overanalyzer and I've found while I'm very good at analyzing and theorizing, if I do not have a rock-solid foundation for my premises my theories can be shockingly wrong. If someone snubs me in public I can create quite elaborate theories about why they are the way they are, but if I simply check with them to see if my premises are true I find that maybe they just didn't see me. of course, that's kind of a silly example, but the same goes for any kind of analysis. That's why you talk to people -- to test out your premises to see if they're really true. Because otherwise, when you analyze people, what are you really basing it on? A completely neutral, objective assessment based on data with an understanding that it paints multiple pictures? Or is it a passing value judgement when the data can be interpreted many different ways? To understand a subculture, you have to first understand that subculture. You don't only have to talk to people -- you can also read and think about their beliefs in good faith. But if you don't do either, you are essentially arguing with the title of the news article without reading the explanation!