3 ms·

Yes, you did give an example. The quote I referenced is from the discussion in the article of the example you gave - even inside the quote it makes an explicit

by ColanR 6y ago

Yes, you did give an example. The quote I referenced is from the discussion in the article of the example you gave - even inside the quote it makes an explicit reference to the table you pointed me to. You're welcome to make another example, but I was specifically responding to the one you gave. That's not cherry-picking, that's a totally relevant counter-example to the one you gave. > not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset Guess I didn't articulate super well. That dataset only covers a very small number of people in a very artificial environment - top lawyers dissecting legal matters from opposite sides of almost every spectrum is hardly an environment representative of e.g. general conversation. Sure, there's a lot of observations made over a period of time, but it's observations of only 9 people, which is a really tiny group when you're trying to make any extrapolation at all to the general population, even if the circumstances had been anything approaching normal. > your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part Are you trying to make a personal jab, or was that just accidental? Maybe 'interrupting' isn't the only interpersonal (systemic?) abrasion that might need fixing in society...

klyrs 6y ago
It's not just a tiny group. It's the most influential group of 9 people at the very top of an egalitarian system of law. Do they represent all of us? No, not perfectly. They should represent the best of us. One reason that this study exists is that it's a deliberative body with excellent records. It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but that would require ridiculously expensive (and highly invasive) data acquisition.
- ColanR 6y ago
  > It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but... That's the problem, isn't it. There's so many things we would know if only we had better data. However, until we actually have useful data, we have to simply acknowledge that there is insufficient data to say anything worth saying. To do otherwise is unscientific.

by ColanR 6y ago

klyrs 6y ago

It's not just a tiny group. It's the most influential group of 9 people at the very top of an egalitarian system of law. Do they represent all of us? No, not perfectly. They should represent the best of us. One reason that this study exists is that it's a deliberative body with excellent records. It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but that would require ridiculously expensive (and highly invasive) data acquisition.

ColanR 6y ago
> It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but... That's the problem, isn't it. There's so many things we would know if only we had better data. However, until we actually have useful data, we have to simply acknowledge that there is insufficient data to say anything worth saying. To do otherwise is unscientific.