3 ms·

Totally, and I think there is a fundamental, deeper, inherent problem in using statistics to determine how you want to manipulate an given object of study. Res

Totally, and I think there is a fundamental, deeper, inherent problem in using statistics to determine how you want to manipulate an given object of study. Researches find that, on average, consumers want X. Companies decide they want to maximize reach and so begin to produce X. Consumers soon have little choice except for X, reaffirming, to future researchers, that consumers want X. This is why I think a plurality of data is so necessary especially when it comes to anything in the social domain, and why it's imperative that we begin to invest more into cross-disciplinary research. Specialization has gotten us far, but it's starting to lead to breakdowns. The only thing that might offset the statistical observation of consumer behavior is a statistical study of consumer opinion that proves to refute or contradict that behavior... but then in response some people will say "people don't know what they want" further reaffirming the conclusions that the action based on the data itself caused (behavior or observation bias). The application of statistics to social problems essentially becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

mjburgess 2y ago
I fully agree. How many IQ effects in studied populations are actually created by the use of IQ tests? Consider how infiltrated IQ-like assessment in throughout society, selecting for doctors, lawyers, postgrads -- military, police, etc. Then consider what data is offered as evidence that IQ 1) exists, and 2) causes observable measures in real-world outcomes. Filtering on the test becomes evidence the test is a measure of anything. The application of "statistics" I dislike the most is where these feedback cycles exist, and large swathes of academia have some extreme responsibility here. Whole fields of gene-traits studies were created over decade+ and then disappeared overnight as actual sequencing took place. All the rigour and splendour of "statistics", and then poof when science was done, it disappeared. Since there are basically no scientific theories of human psychology, society, and the like -- gluing together correlations here should be seen as prima facie absurd. The alternative? Rely on expertise, and build resilience-to-failure into the system and tolerance for higher variability. Human expertise obtained in domain-specific environments is vastly superior to the species correlations of surveys written by idiots who've never done any actual science.

mjburgess 2y ago

I fully agree. How many IQ effects in studied populations are actually created by the use of IQ tests? Consider how infiltrated IQ-like assessment in throughout society, selecting for doctors, lawyers, postgrads -- military, police, etc. Then consider what data is offered as evidence that IQ 1) exists, and 2) causes observable measures in real-world outcomes. Filtering on the test becomes evidence the test is a measure of anything. The application of "statistics" I dislike the most is where these feedback cycles exist, and large swathes of academia have some extreme responsibility here. Whole fields of gene-traits studies were created over decade+ and then disappeared overnight as actual sequencing took place. All the rigour and splendour of "statistics", and then poof when science was done, it disappeared. Since there are basically no scientific theories of human psychology, society, and the like -- gluing together correlations here should be seen as prima facie absurd. The alternative? Rely on expertise, and build resilience-to-failure into the system and tolerance for higher variability. Human expertise obtained in domain-specific environments is vastly superior to the species correlations of surveys written by idiots who've never done any actual science.