3 ms·
Because data can also lie. The key here is that the number reported is "unique visitors" – what, exactly, is this telling us? Not much at all because it says n
by incongruity 14y ago
Because data can also lie. The key here is that the number reported is "unique visitors" – what, exactly, is this telling us?
Not much at all because it says nothing of intent, much less duration of stay on that page or frequency of use.
In the absence of that additional data, anecdotes can be useful to express doubt or confusion about data that seems to not pass the sniff-test. It can be as minimal as "is it just me, or does ... ?" sort of constructions or it can be more formalized to say – "This doesn't fit with my personal observations".
The mistake is thinking that anecdotes add up to data – they don't – but put enough of them together and they can be heuristically valuable – and one on its own, in the absence of other real data, is still a completely valid construct for conversational purposes or to challenge (albeit weakly) some over-cooked claim, like what I'm seeing here, with the google+ traffic data. The refutation of such an anecdotal experience with sound evidence doesn't mean the the anecdote was worthless – hardly. It was valuable because it was provocative.
- saraid216 14y agoOP: Wrong. Anecdote: Wrong. incongruity: Two wrongs make a right!
- incongruity 14y agoGeorge E.P. Box is quoted as saying: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." I would adapt that and say that all anecdotes are wrong, but some are useful.
- kingkilr 14y agoSurely you have to make an actual argument as to why it's useful though? So far all I've heard is "my friends don't use G+".
- incongruity 14y agoTruth be told, I'm not arguing strongly in support of the original bit of anecdotal evidence. I was more responding to the quote: "Why is there the need to respond to data with anecdotes?" I feel as though I made my case pretty well for a generalized reason, above. In this particular case, as I said: "The key here is that the number reported is "unique visitors" – what, exactly, is this telling us? Not much at all because it says nothing of intent, much less duration of stay on that page or frequency of use. I think there's much ado about little data. So, in the face of not all that informative of data, I think a weak bit of anecdotal pushback is wonderful if it gets conversation started.
- saraid216 14y agoConversation is pretty worthless when it's speculation piled on speculation. If that's your thing, then well... okay. I mean... if there's much ado about little data, why is it that MORE ado is better?
- incongruity 14y agoThe simplest answer: see work on abductive reasoning and hypothesis building. But, more fully, anecdotes aren't speculation. They're individual experience. They are not, of course, a statistically representative sample. That doesn't mean it's worthless – it's just not authoritative, but it is still some person's real experience (internet truthiness aside). The all-or nothing view of validity and knowledge is problematic – and likely not reflective of how you or anyone else actually deals with reasoning. Beyond that if it sparked discussion that either spurred the uncovering of real data or identified the requirement of further considerations, it's still of value.
- saraid216 14y ago> Beyond that if it sparked discussion that either spurred the uncovering of real data or identified the requirement of further considerations, it's still of value. Which it didn't. We're not going to get better data until Google releases it, and Google is clearly not going to be doing so. > But, more fully, anecdotes aren't speculation. This claim would be okay if the anecdote was offered in a neutral environment. Here, however, it's being offered as contradictory evidence. The speculation isn't in the anecdote: it's in the purpose of offering the anecdote in the first place. The anecdote was about the same as a TIOBE survey result coming out and responding with, "Oh, but I know a lot of Haskell programmers and don't know any Python programmers." That's wonderful for you and all, but your experience is seriously not relevant, nor does it prompt useful discussion or the discovery of useful data. I agree that anecdotes can be useful. That's half the purpose of journalism: finding anecdotes. I disagree that they are useful here.