3 ms·
We can't measure everything. Self-reporting + averaging misses subtle results, or even regular-sized results looked at the wrong way. There's also the secondar
by sdwr 2y ago
We can't measure everything. Self-reporting + averaging misses subtle results, or even regular-sized results looked at the wrong way.
There's also the secondary layer - people are social creatures, and adjust our behavior to match what is allowed or expected.
The scientific system is designed for inanimate objects that function the same way every time. Why is it so hard to believe that the test is flawed, not the experience?
- rtkwe 2y ago> Why is it so hard to believe that the test is flawed, not the experience? It's multiple tests performed multiple ways by different people thinking about how to adapt to the issues that trying to measure people poses. That's far more convincing to me than adhoc non rigorous common knowledge. We're so beset by failures in our ability to draw good conclusions from non rigorous anecdata, confirmation bias, selection bias, hidden factors, faulty recall, etc, that I'm really hard pressed to believe anecdotal data when it contradicts multiple studies.