6 ms·

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 crippli

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
- pbreit 14y ago
  I didn't see any anecdotes in the post.
the_bear 14y ago
So you're suggesting that because some people are bad at weighing information, anything based on personal experience should be downvoted? Successful entrepreneurs should no longer give advice? Programmers shouldn't weigh in on programming issues unless they're citing third-party research? Marketers can't suggest tips for how to promote a startup because it's possible their methods aren't universally successful?
- loup-vaillant 14y ago
  It's just not some people. It's everyone. Including you, me, and those who know about the various failure modes. And please don't straw man me. Personal experience is mostly great. Successful entrepreneurs may have better decision making processes, not just more luck. Programming issues should be weighted on, since there are so little reliable studies here, and the field is so young. Etc. I was just talking about the cases when the evidence that contradicts the anecdote is solid and definite.
  - JoeAltmaier 14y ago
    Disagree. Successful entrepreneurs are lottery winners with attitude, by and large. The programming field is no longer young, we should give up that old excuse. And no you are not being straw-manned, the argument is. Good to not take things personal here. Studies are necessarily narrow and context-laden, even 'solid and definite' ones. The suggestion to automatically downvote anecdotes is too broad, and should be refuted.
    - loup-vaillant 14y ago
      > Successful entrepreneurs are lottery winners with attitude, by and large. Possibly. Actually I don't know. Anyone knowledgeable should disregard my opinion. > The programming field is no longer young, we should give up that old excuse. Right. However, I don't feel like we're anywhere near clearing the chaos around the psychology of programming. I still don't know for instance why so many people cannot understand functional programming, which I personally find simpler than procedural programming in most cases I deal with. Or why technical debt doesn't seem to be taken seriously. Programming is several decades old, but it still feels young to me. > And no you are not being straw-manned, the argument is. Good to not take things personal here. Hmm, yes, I was too aggressive here. Sorry. > Studies are necessarily narrow and context-laden, even 'solid and definite' ones. Ah, I didn't think of this danger. You're right, we at the very least need safeguards. Like, tying downvotes to reasons why they happen, so we (high karma users, moderators?) may be able to nullify those which turn out to be bogus. But that's complicated. Or, maybe we could just not downvote, but point out in a reply that this is contrarian anecdotal evidence?
bad_user 14y ago
A vaccine is a virus in latent form, forcing your B-cells to produce antibodies for it. So yeah, personally I never take a vaccine that hasn't been in circulation for some time. Also, considering that medicine is at the stage of alchemy and that doctors simply have no idea what long-term effects these vaccines have on our immune system, some questions do have to be asked. Like, isn't it possible that with the prevalence of vaccines, our own capacity for generating antibodies gets affected? And remember here that an exaggerated response of the immune system may be even worse than a lazier response. Such an exaggerated response may even kill you (e.g. Influenza). So either way, the long-term effects of over-reliance of vaccines may be quite bad.
- ars 14y ago
  > A vaccine is a virus in latent form Not exactly, it's not a virus in latent form, it's either a killed virus, a piece of a virus, or a different virus that is weak, but provokes the same reaction as the more important one. (Do you know what latent means? It means that it shows up later, which vaccines do not do.) > So yeah, personally I never take a vaccine that hasn't been in circulation for some time. Yah, me too, but let's not overreact with nonsense. > Like, isn't it possible that with the prevalence of vaccines, our own capacity for generating antibodies gets affected? No, it's not possible. That's completely ridiculous. Do you know anything about vaccines at all? Seriously, that really makes no sense whatsoever. A vaccine does not do anything at all to our capacity to generate antibodies. All it does is take the exact same virus you would get if you got sick, and expose you to it in advance, that's all. It gives you a head start in making antibodies, but does not affect the generation of them in any way. > And remember here that an exaggerated response of the immune system may be even worse than a lazier response. Such an exaggerated response may even kill you (e.g. Influenza). And a vaccine creates a muted response, quite the opposite. Compared to a simple cold a vaccine consists of a minuscule number of virus particles. The entire trouble with making a vaccine is trying to get enough of a response, most of the time the body ignores it. > So either way, the long-term effects of over-reliance of vaccines may be quite bad. And how do you figure that? I'm not following your logic at all. Unless your logic is that the vaccine somehow changes the bodies response, which it doesn't. So hopefully now that I've cleared that up you will no longer claim this.

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
pbreit 14y ago
I didn't see any anecdotes in the post.

the_bear 14y ago

So you're suggesting that because some people are bad at weighing information, anything based on personal experience should be downvoted? Successful entrepreneurs should no longer give advice? Programmers shouldn't weigh in on programming issues unless they're citing third-party research? Marketers can't suggest tips for how to promote a startup because it's possible their methods aren't universally successful?

loup-vaillant 14y ago
It's just not some people. It's everyone. Including you, me, and those who know about the various failure modes. And please don't straw man me. Personal experience is mostly great. Successful entrepreneurs may have better decision making processes, not just more luck. Programming issues should be weighted on, since there are so little reliable studies here, and the field is so young. Etc. I was just talking about the cases when the evidence that contradicts the anecdote is solid and definite.
- JoeAltmaier 14y ago
  Disagree. Successful entrepreneurs are lottery winners with attitude, by and large. The programming field is no longer young, we should give up that old excuse. And no you are not being straw-manned, the argument is. Good to not take things personal here. Studies are necessarily narrow and context-laden, even 'solid and definite' ones. The suggestion to automatically downvote anecdotes is too broad, and should be refuted.
  - loup-vaillant 14y ago
    > Successful entrepreneurs are lottery winners with attitude, by and large. Possibly. Actually I don't know. Anyone knowledgeable should disregard my opinion. > The programming field is no longer young, we should give up that old excuse. Right. However, I don't feel like we're anywhere near clearing the chaos around the psychology of programming. I still don't know for instance why so many people cannot understand functional programming, which I personally find simpler than procedural programming in most cases I deal with. Or why technical debt doesn't seem to be taken seriously. Programming is several decades old, but it still feels young to me. > And no you are not being straw-manned, the argument is. Good to not take things personal here. Hmm, yes, I was too aggressive here. Sorry. > Studies are necessarily narrow and context-laden, even 'solid and definite' ones. Ah, I didn't think of this danger. You're right, we at the very least need safeguards. Like, tying downvotes to reasons why they happen, so we (high karma users, moderators?) may be able to nullify those which turn out to be bogus. But that's complicated. Or, maybe we could just not downvote, but point out in a reply that this is contrarian anecdotal evidence?

bad_user 14y ago

A vaccine is a virus in latent form, forcing your B-cells to produce antibodies for it. So yeah, personally I never take a vaccine that hasn't been in circulation for some time. Also, considering that medicine is at the stage of alchemy and that doctors simply have no idea what long-term effects these vaccines have on our immune system, some questions do have to be asked. Like, isn't it possible that with the prevalence of vaccines, our own capacity for generating antibodies gets affected? And remember here that an exaggerated response of the immune system may be even worse than a lazier response. Such an exaggerated response may even kill you (e.g. Influenza). So either way, the long-term effects of over-reliance of vaccines may be quite bad.

ars 14y ago
> A vaccine is a virus in latent form Not exactly, it's not a virus in latent form, it's either a killed virus, a piece of a virus, or a different virus that is weak, but provokes the same reaction as the more important one. (Do you know what latent means? It means that it shows up later, which vaccines do not do.) > So yeah, personally I never take a vaccine that hasn't been in circulation for some time. Yah, me too, but let's not overreact with nonsense. > Like, isn't it possible that with the prevalence of vaccines, our own capacity for generating antibodies gets affected? No, it's not possible. That's completely ridiculous. Do you know anything about vaccines at all? Seriously, that really makes no sense whatsoever. A vaccine does not do anything at all to our capacity to generate antibodies. All it does is take the exact same virus you would get if you got sick, and expose you to it in advance, that's all. It gives you a head start in making antibodies, but does not affect the generation of them in any way. > And remember here that an exaggerated response of the immune system may be even worse than a lazier response. Such an exaggerated response may even kill you (e.g. Influenza). And a vaccine creates a muted response, quite the opposite. Compared to a simple cold a vaccine consists of a minuscule number of virus particles. The entire trouble with making a vaccine is trying to get enough of a response, most of the time the body ignores it. > So either way, the long-term effects of over-reliance of vaccines may be quite bad. And how do you figure that? I'm not following your logic at all. Unless your logic is that the vaccine somehow changes the bodies response, which it doesn't. So hopefully now that I've cleared that up you will no longer claim this.