3 ms·

Bad research, lousy generalizations, and crappy conclusions. > The hypotheses were supported across four studies. I wonder which study Warren Buffet, that dis

Bad research, lousy generalizations, and crappy conclusions. > The hypotheses were supported across four studies. I wonder which study Warren Buffet, that disagreeable guy, fell into?

corin_ 15y ago
Regardless of opinion on the quality of the research, how does one person prove anything. What's that quote, "the plural of anecdote isn't data"?
- jpdoctor 15y ago
  > how does one person prove anything. When the article includes the statement "Nice guys do not necessarily finish last, but they do finish a distant second in terms of earnings", it is a sign of either: 1. Imprecise writing, or 2. Wrong conclusions. If their conclusions are wrong, then the article is a waste of bits. If their writing is imprecise, then just how imprecise are the generalizing statements that cannot be disproved with an obvious counterexample? In either case, the article looks like all noise and no signal to me.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    If their conclusion is correct (and I have no idea if it is or isn't), the quite obviously that statement is a generalisation, and a perfectly fine use of one too. It quite clearly means "as a general trend", not "in absolutely every case". Did you honestly read that and think "aha, I can think of somebody who doesn't fit that statement, they're clearly wrong"?
- maw 15y ago
  No, but the plural of datum is. Datum: Buffett has done rather well for himself. Doesn't show much by itself, but then neither does trotting out an old saw.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    The fact that it's a much over-used phrase doesn't make it any less correct. The point stands that naming somebody who doesn't fit into research does not disprove it. My dad and I are both smokers, neither of us has lung cancer - I'm still pretty sure there's a link between those two despite by two pieces of datum.
takinola 15y ago
Having read Snowball (the biography of Warren Buffet), I would not be so sure he isn't disagreeable. Clearly, this is a guy who is so focused on his goals that everything else and everyone else in his life took a back seat. He does not come across as a malicious person but clearly not a "nice" person. The terminology used in the article ("disagreeable", "mean", etc) is imho too emotionally loaded for proper understanding of the phenomenon. Most people reading this article see the takeaway as "assholes finish first" and are (rightly so) conflicted about trading their souls for a couple gold coins. The real lesson, I think, is to realize that to get anything significant done, you will eventually have to piss off some people you care about at some point. They could be your employees, partners, customers or even family. But this is alright, we piss each off all the time. It's ok, it's a part of life. Just don't be a jerk about it.

Bad research, lousy generalizations, and crappy conclusions. > The hypotheses were supported across four studies. I wonder which study Warren Buffet, that disagreeable guy, fell into?

corin_ 15y ago

Regardless of opinion on the quality of the research, how does one person prove anything. What's that quote, "the plural of anecdote isn't data"?

jpdoctor 15y ago
> how does one person prove anything. When the article includes the statement "Nice guys do not necessarily finish last, but they do finish a distant second in terms of earnings", it is a sign of either: 1. Imprecise writing, or 2. Wrong conclusions. If their conclusions are wrong, then the article is a waste of bits. If their writing is imprecise, then just how imprecise are the generalizing statements that cannot be disproved with an obvious counterexample? In either case, the article looks like all noise and no signal to me.
- corin_ 15y ago
  If their conclusion is correct (and I have no idea if it is or isn't), the quite obviously that statement is a generalisation, and a perfectly fine use of one too. It quite clearly means "as a general trend", not "in absolutely every case". Did you honestly read that and think "aha, I can think of somebody who doesn't fit that statement, they're clearly wrong"?
maw 15y ago
No, but the plural of datum is. Datum: Buffett has done rather well for himself. Doesn't show much by itself, but then neither does trotting out an old saw.
- corin_ 15y ago
  The fact that it's a much over-used phrase doesn't make it any less correct. The point stands that naming somebody who doesn't fit into research does not disprove it. My dad and I are both smokers, neither of us has lung cancer - I'm still pretty sure there's a link between those two despite by two pieces of datum.

takinola 15y ago

Having read Snowball (the biography of Warren Buffet), I would not be so sure he isn't disagreeable. Clearly, this is a guy who is so focused on his goals that everything else and everyone else in his life took a back seat. He does not come across as a malicious person but clearly not a "nice" person. The terminology used in the article ("disagreeable", "mean", etc) is imho too emotionally loaded for proper understanding of the phenomenon. Most people reading this article see the takeaway as "assholes finish first" and are (rightly so) conflicted about trading their souls for a couple gold coins. The real lesson, I think, is to realize that to get anything significant done, you will eventually have to piss off some people you care about at some point. They could be your employees, partners, customers or even family. But this is alright, we piss each off all the time. It's ok, it's a part of life. Just don't be a jerk about it.