3 ms·
Is there a name for this phenomenon I've noticed in things like evidence-based practice: Phase I: On average, our averages show that X is successful/X does Y.
by bratgpttamer 3y ago
Is there a name for this phenomenon I've noticed in things like evidence-based practice:
Phase I: On average, our averages show that X is successful/X does Y.
[The Science™ sez X! We must all do X now!]
Phase II: Wait! Those averages only apply to a specific subset of the cases and don't consider the outliers, which, to our complete and total surprise, behave somewhat differently!
- shortrounddev2 3y agoCherrypicking?
- bratgpttamer 3y agoI associate that with bad-faith attempts to prove a point, which I don't think this is. It feels more like a communications problem where a finding like 'Most (65%) cases respond favorably to X', followed by lots of hype around X, only to see a bunch of surprised pikachu faces when a subsequent paper looks at the 45%. Maybe it's just hype cycles, but it feels like there's gotta be some professional obligation to proactively consider the outliers/edge cases/minority group(s), rather than waiting several years for the "woah wait, turns out not all X are Y" paper.