3 ms·
When it comes to smart/clean, maybe you can hang out with enough people to get an accurate sample. But then you would find other paradoxes, like maybe you'd fi
by saint_fiasco 3y ago
When it comes to smart/clean, maybe you can hang out with enough people to get an accurate sample.
But then you would find other paradoxes, like maybe you'd find that the smart/clean programmers you meet have a worse personality or are less athletic than the dumb/messy ones.
The only way for it to not apply at all, for every possible trait, is if you hang out with the entire planet at the same time.
- ninetyninenine 3y agoWouldn't personality and athleticism be off topic though? I'm only referring to two traits here: intelligence and code sloppiness. Does this paradox still apply in this case? Or is this paradox some kind of broad thing not relegated to a specific correlation?
- fragmede 3y agoThey're off topic, but the point is you'll find correlation where you want to.
- ninetyninenine 3y agoPossible. But also possible that no bias influenced my observation. And who's to say that the correlation I happen to want isn't real?
- fragmede 3y agoI am. I mean, it could be you're right. everyone's entitled to their own opinions though. some people think the moon is made of cheese, for example. but the reality is the inherent bias in your sample set is too large to be ignored.
- ninetyninenine 3y agoMy claim from a common sense perspective isn't outlandish as saying the moon is made of cheese. Biased samples don't automatically invalidate every aspect of the sample as a description of the reality. The possibility remains that every most programmers have two eyes just as smarter programmers tend to write sloppier code. Look the general thing here is that anecdotal information is not automatically invalid. Your type of argument just goes around dismissing all forms of anecdotal data as if it's completely false. It's like you cannot even get up from bed and put your feet on the floor because there's no science saying that the floor exists.
- fragmede 3y agoThe plural of anecdote is not data! Looking around at the people surrounding you, you could also easily conclude that everyone has the same skin tone. If you've only ever lived in, say, Scotland, you could erroneously conclude that, on top of everyone having two eyes, every one is also white. It's not until you look past the fact that you're in Scotland biases your dataset to being exclusively white people, that you see there are other kinds of people out there. Living in Scotland and sampling your data there, concludes that all humans are white, along with having two eyes.
- ninetyninenine 3y ago>Living in Scotland and sampling your data there, concludes that all humans are white, along with having two eyes. So? I also conclude that most humans have two legs and 10 fingers and a head, and two ears and skin and hair. We gonna dismiss all of that because the data is just anecdotal? >The plural of anecdote is not data! The plural of anecdote is anecdotes (with an s) the adjective form of anecdote, is "anecdotal" as in "anecdotal" data.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- fragmede 3y agoAnecdotal evidence isn't worthless, but it's not solid proof either. It's prone to bias and lacks the breadth and rigor of systematic data. Pointing out common human traits doesn't strengthen your argument; these are well-documented facts, not mere anecdotes. The leap from "my experience" to "universal truth" requires data, not just stories. Anecdotes spark curiosity; data provides answers.