6 ms·

No. Contrarian anecdotes are good. They may turn out to be without merit, but then again so may the article itself. Having a real discussion is a good thing. A

by Udo 14y ago

No. Contrarian anecdotes are good. They may turn out to be without merit, but then again so may the article itself. Having a real discussion is a good thing. Also, I would like to propose a logarithmic scale for weighting such things. Say, if the article in question found something extraordinarily significant with 100 out of 100 samples resulting in A, then it's still not rational to weigh a contrarian viewpoint resulting in B with 1/101 - it should maybe be closer to 1/3 or something. Consensus culture and worship authority are not desirable in my opinion. Arguments should be weighed on their merits and it's appropriate to explore other viewpoints or explanations even if they turn out to be dead ends most of the time.

loup-vaillant 14y ago
Let's take an example, since they seem to work best: vaccines. Vaccines protect you from the risk of contracting particular diseases, some of which are crippling, lethal, or incurable. Plus, most are extremely effective: once you take your shots, you are effectively immune. That's good. There is a downside however. Sometimes, vaccines have side effects. Most side effects are quite benign, but if you're unlucky enough, they can be crippling, lethal, or incurable. That's bad. From a medical point of view, vaccines are a net good (let's leave aside logistic considerations, or the effort required to go to the doctor). When you look at the stats, you stand a much better chance at life and health if you take the shot. Even for relatively minor illnesses like the flu. Now, let's say someone post a heartbreaking comment about how her 9 year old daughter died of a vaccine shot, with all the gory details about the suffering, how she couldn't participate in her school's festival, the size of the coffin… I'm quite sure there are stories of the kind. Given the sheer amount of readers here, maybe one of you will more or less directly relate to that. My apologies to those who do. Nevertheless, what makes a good story doesn't necessarily make good evidence. When you know of reliable statistics, and you read a contrarian anecdote, you should shift your belief in the direction of the anecdote by a precise amount, which is almost always tiny. What your brain will actually do behind you back however, is shifting your belief by a significant amount, often crossing the "reasonable doubt" line. That's not rational, but that's what will happen. Nameless statistics feel abstract, remote. An anecdote on the other hand feels concrete, real, close. Worse, you can spend far more time reading about the salient anecdotes than learning about the end results of reliable, but boring, scientific studies. Another example: you don't win the lottery. Period. You don't know of any close family of friend that ever did. But maybe one of you readers do. Maybe that one could comment and say "Hey, but my cousin did win the lottery!". Would that prove me wrong? Not at all. It's just that when the sample size is huge enough, even the tiniest chance can actualize.
- retrogradeorbit 14y ago
  Are you actually arguing against giving anecdotes weight by using... anecdotes?
  - archangel_one 14y ago
    Those are examples, not anecdotes.
    - loup-vaillant 14y ago
      Yes, but I did make use of strong emotional story-like elements to make my point.
  - loup-vaillant 14y ago
    Yes, I'm evil. Here is the "good" version: Bayesianism is correct. Those who don't believe me may want to read E. T. Jaynes[1] or Eliezer Yudkowsky[2] (long, and may feel abstract and dull). But countless studies about biases showed that we humans are poor at correctly assessing evidence at our disposal. Some of those studies showed that some failure modes come from anecdotes. Downvoting seems harsh, but it's the best we currently have to combat those failure modes. Now we don't want to overdo it. I suggest we put a comment citing which reliable statistics contradict the downvoted anecdote. Maybe that'll help avoid groupthink. We may also want to allow people to just say they have anecdotal evidence to the contrary of whatever. [1]: http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf [2]: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/technical http://yudkowsky.net/rational/technical
  - JackFr 14y ago
    Those aren't anecdotes, they are hypotheticals. They are useful, but statistically they occur even more infrequently than anecdotes.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    Those are hypotheticals or thought experiments, not anecdotes... they would be anecdotes if they were claimed to have actually happened. I'm not arguing against anecdotes, but there is an important distinction there
jd 14y ago
I'd say that contrarian anecdotes are good if -- for instance -- the discussion spawned by the anecdote leads to a better understanding of the subject at hand. However, because anecdotes are stories we tend to remember them vividly and they affect our judgment disproportionally. Human brains are very flawed, and it may very well be the case that the negative effect of contrarian anecdotes vastly outweighs the benefit we get from the discussion it spawns. I don't know the answer. But I do know that we can't state with certainty that "having a real discussion is a good thing". As for how we should weigh new evidence, this is essentially a solved problem: use Bayes' rule. Suppose that 100 out of 100 studies indicate that smoking is a leading cause of cancer and a contrarian viewpoint ("My grandfather smoked his whole life and lived to 123!") indicates otherwise. Then that anecdotal viewpoint should get approximately 0 weight. Zero. Nip. Zilch. Nada. We're all experts in a few subjects at best. In those subjects we can easily explore different viewpoints, balance different arguments and keep track of the different schools of thought. We can even confidently diverge from expert consensus if needed. But in most subjects we're enthusiastic laymen at best. I don't think debates and exploration of different viewpoints then lead to much greater understanding. Just look at any forum on the internet (including this one). Debates aplenty and the few knowledgeable people get drowned out in a sea of contrarian musings. Expert consensus is just the aggregate opinion of those who have the best understanding. So when a layman disagrees with the experts he's almost certainly wrong. What I see is the opposite of consensus culture. I see a willingness to disagree with the experts before understanding the subject material in depth.
aptwebapps 14y ago
> ... a contrarian viewpoint resulting in B with 1/101 Well, see, that's part of the problem. The original sample of 100 was, hopefully, selected at random. Whereas the anecdote was selected by the person telling it because he or or she thought it was apropos. With a large enough population of potential commenters, the chances of someone doing so gets really high.

by Udo 14y ago

loup-vaillant 14y ago

Let's take an example, since they seem to work best: vaccines. Vaccines protect you from the risk of contracting particular diseases, some of which are crippling, lethal, or incurable. Plus, most are extremely effective: once you take your shots, you are effectively immune. That's good. There is a downside however. Sometimes, vaccines have side effects. Most side effects are quite benign, but if you're unlucky enough, they can be crippling, lethal, or incurable. That's bad. From a medical point of view, vaccines are a net good (let's leave aside logistic considerations, or the effort required to go to the doctor). When you look at the stats, you stand a much better chance at life and health if you take the shot. Even for relatively minor illnesses like the flu. Now, let's say someone post a heartbreaking comment about how her 9 year old daughter died of a vaccine shot, with all the gory details about the suffering, how she couldn't participate in her school's festival, the size of the coffin… I'm quite sure there are stories of the kind. Given the sheer amount of readers here, maybe one of you will more or less directly relate to that. My apologies to those who do. Nevertheless, what makes a good story doesn't necessarily make good evidence. When you know of reliable statistics, and you read a contrarian anecdote, you should shift your belief in the direction of the anecdote by a precise amount, which is almost always tiny. What your brain will actually do behind you back however, is shifting your belief by a significant amount, often crossing the "reasonable doubt" line. That's not rational, but that's what will happen. Nameless statistics feel abstract, remote. An anecdote on the other hand feels concrete, real, close. Worse, you can spend far more time reading about the salient anecdotes than learning about the end results of reliable, but boring, scientific studies. Another example: you don't win the lottery. Period. You don't know of any close family of friend that ever did. But maybe one of you readers do. Maybe that one could comment and say "Hey, but my cousin did win the lottery!". Would that prove me wrong? Not at all. It's just that when the sample size is huge enough, even the tiniest chance can actualize.

retrogradeorbit 14y ago
Are you actually arguing against giving anecdotes weight by using... anecdotes?
- archangel_one 14y ago
  Those are examples, not anecdotes.
  - loup-vaillant 14y ago
    Yes, but I did make use of strong emotional story-like elements to make my point.
- loup-vaillant 14y ago
  Yes, I'm evil. Here is the "good" version: Bayesianism is correct. Those who don't believe me may want to read E. T. Jaynes[1] or Eliezer Yudkowsky[2] (long, and may feel abstract and dull). But countless studies about biases showed that we humans are poor at correctly assessing evidence at our disposal. Some of those studies showed that some failure modes come from anecdotes. Downvoting seems harsh, but it's the best we currently have to combat those failure modes. Now we don't want to overdo it. I suggest we put a comment citing which reliable statistics contradict the downvoted anecdote. Maybe that'll help avoid groupthink. We may also want to allow people to just say they have anecdotal evidence to the contrary of whatever. [1]: http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf [2]: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/technical http://yudkowsky.net/rational/technical
- JackFr 14y ago
  Those aren't anecdotes, they are hypotheticals. They are useful, but statistically they occur even more infrequently than anecdotes.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  Those are hypotheticals or thought experiments, not anecdotes... they would be anecdotes if they were claimed to have actually happened. I'm not arguing against anecdotes, but there is an important distinction there

jd 14y ago

I'd say that contrarian anecdotes are good if -- for instance -- the discussion spawned by the anecdote leads to a better understanding of the subject at hand. However, because anecdotes are stories we tend to remember them vividly and they affect our judgment disproportionally. Human brains are very flawed, and it may very well be the case that the negative effect of contrarian anecdotes vastly outweighs the benefit we get from the discussion it spawns. I don't know the answer. But I do know that we can't state with certainty that "having a real discussion is a good thing". As for how we should weigh new evidence, this is essentially a solved problem: use Bayes' rule. Suppose that 100 out of 100 studies indicate that smoking is a leading cause of cancer and a contrarian viewpoint ("My grandfather smoked his whole life and lived to 123!") indicates otherwise. Then that anecdotal viewpoint should get approximately 0 weight. Zero. Nip. Zilch. Nada. We're all experts in a few subjects at best. In those subjects we can easily explore different viewpoints, balance different arguments and keep track of the different schools of thought. We can even confidently diverge from expert consensus if needed. But in most subjects we're enthusiastic laymen at best. I don't think debates and exploration of different viewpoints then lead to much greater understanding. Just look at any forum on the internet (including this one). Debates aplenty and the few knowledgeable people get drowned out in a sea of contrarian musings. Expert consensus is just the aggregate opinion of those who have the best understanding. So when a layman disagrees with the experts he's almost certainly wrong. What I see is the opposite of consensus culture. I see a willingness to disagree with the experts before understanding the subject material in depth.

aptwebapps 14y ago

> ... a contrarian viewpoint resulting in B with 1/101 Well, see, that's part of the problem. The original sample of 100 was, hopefully, selected at random. Whereas the anecdote was selected by the person telling it because he or or she thought it was apropos. With a large enough population of potential commenters, the chances of someone doing so gets really high.