3 ms·

Though I fundamentally agree with you, especially on the silly claims about body language/quantitative claims about money spent on chairs, beds etc., I think it

Though I fundamentally agree with you, especially on the silly claims about body language/quantitative claims about money spent on chairs, beds etc., I think it's important to realise that, in life, we constantly have to make decisions and:- * There simply isn't enough time to thoroughly research everything on a scientific basis, not to mention that a large number of decisions must be made on things for which there simply isn't any good scientific data. * Many questions simply lie outside the scope of scientific investigation - science (at least for the time being - things will get interesting when we are better able to model the brain) cannot determine answers to a great many philosophical questions for one, and, perhaps more controversially, there are questions where the number of factors involved simply make make scientific investigation either impractical or irrelevant - for example, determining whether agile actually makes a difference to dev team performance, or whether one language is more productive than another (and I know we'd all like the answer to that one :-). It is very hard to control for the vast number of factors in a human endeavour - I am certain this is something not simply limited to computing but in fact applicable to many engineering disciplines. In summary - though anecdote is scientifically useless, it is sometimes all we have to go on to make a decision. Just don't talk about it like it's scientific.

heyitsnick 16y ago
I agree entirely. There's lots of great advice in the post. Many things are logistically very difficult to study, and in general, "happiness" is a tough variable to quantify. Advice like "perhaps you could consider spending your money to live closer to work" doesn't require citation. Nor does "self-promotion works". I go to my peers and family and ask for advice on problems and decisions and I'm not looking for citations but their advice best on their life experience. In no way am I diminishing this. However, A cheap chair and mattress may end up costing you 10-20x in doctor's bills. is purporting fact. It looks to the casual observer that this is backed by some study. Using numbers implies something has been measured. Yet there is no citation. This 'fact' may be read, repeated, regurgitated and enter in to folklore, when in fact likely this is someone just proffering their opinion. This is actually harmful and just encourages the kind of "common sense or wisdom" that the original question was trying to avoid.
- singular 16y ago
  Yes and, perhaps not clearly, I said that in mentioning the silliness of being quantitive about it and in the summary remark - though maybe not putting enough emphasis on it - stating something as if it is scientific fact when it's just pulled out of your ass is not only misleading, it's bordering on plain evil. No better way to a. mislead and b. discredit science. We are most definitely agreed on that point :-)

heyitsnick 16y ago

I agree entirely. There's lots of great advice in the post. Many things are logistically very difficult to study, and in general, "happiness" is a tough variable to quantify. Advice like "perhaps you could consider spending your money to live closer to work" doesn't require citation. Nor does "self-promotion works". I go to my peers and family and ask for advice on problems and decisions and I'm not looking for citations but their advice best on their life experience. In no way am I diminishing this. However, A cheap chair and mattress may end up costing you 10-20x in doctor's bills. is purporting fact. It looks to the casual observer that this is backed by some study. Using numbers implies something has been measured. Yet there is no citation. This 'fact' may be read, repeated, regurgitated and enter in to folklore, when in fact likely this is someone just proffering their opinion. This is actually harmful and just encourages the kind of "common sense or wisdom" that the original question was trying to avoid.

singular 16y ago
Yes and, perhaps not clearly, I said that in mentioning the silliness of being quantitive about it and in the summary remark - though maybe not putting enough emphasis on it - stating something as if it is scientific fact when it's just pulled out of your ass is not only misleading, it's bordering on plain evil. No better way to a. mislead and b. discredit science. We are most definitely agreed on that point :-)