4 ms·
You raise an interesting point. I used to be convinced by purely data-based and "science"-based points, but due to overly-confident sounding statistics over th
by jbm 3y ago
You raise an interesting point. I used to be convinced by purely data-based and "science"-based points, but due to overly-confident sounding statistics over the past 5 years, I've stopped paying attention to it - particularly with regards to social sciences.
Unless we have cameras monitoring American men at all times, we do not know that they have reduced face-to-face socializing by 30%. What we do have is very intelligent people who are incentivized to produce research that makes waves; some of them are honest, others are not, and I don't really have the wherewithal to determine what the case is here. The reproduction crisis is real and simply accepting conclusions seems naive.
If a study doesn't pass the smell test, is not easily reproducible, and I have no personally trusted people who can vouch for the findings, then - yes - my feelings matter more.
So yes - it is legit for the op's feelings to be more important for op. We should applaud people for not simply accepting conclusions.
(In this case, my personal feelings, for what little they are worth,is that there are a lot of people who socialize less, and I assume it is because there are more people in cities and in circumstances where hanging out is harder.)
- the_only_law 3y ago[dead]
- dang 3y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. You can't attack others like this here, regardless of how wrong they are or you feel they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jbm 3y ago>> If a study doesn't pass the smell test, is not easily reproducible, and I have no personally trusted people who can vouch for the findings, then - yes - my feelings matter more. > Are you fucking stupid? They’re doing just that, but in the opposite direction I don't think you read what I wrote in any attempt to understand. The argument is that a person can value their own experiences more than data, and not that their experiences are convincing to other people. It doesn't bother me that someone feels their anecdotal experience in their social circles is completely different from the data shared. The original data could be slanted, the social circle could be different, and it's an opportunity - not something that needs to be shouted down because of "the data". Even assuming the data is correct, having a potential population in which it is different would be of far greater interest than flexing about the supposed absolute truth of the data.
- ryandrake 3y agoYes, studies and data could be wrong. But they should be countered with “better studies and data” not with smell checks and gut feelings.
- jbm 3y agoI get that gut checks and feelings are what climate denialists use, and I'm aware of the inaccuracy involved. Still, it's literally all you have, unless you are going to create that "Journal of Uninteresting Results / Journal of Failed Experiments" and have it become the basis for people to keep their jobs in University. If you want to be an open pipe to "data", that's your prerogative.
- Izkata 3y agoThis entire comment chain is like people arguing on behalf of the government of Nineteen Eighty-Four: Don't trust your eyes and ears, they lie, trust only what we tell you.