> 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

> 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.