3 ms·

Whose to say "cited findings" have any more value than "anecdata". The institutions that build these national and international statistics do so with bias and

Whose to say "cited findings" have any more value than "anecdata". The institutions that build these national and international statistics do so with bias and goals, or without complete data. For example, how can a bureau make a national statistics on crime accurate when cities intentional report crime incorrectly to look better in statistics. To think "cited findings" is gospel truth is naive. I know it's highly desired here, but I stand by what I'm saying. Data is lovely, but garbage in, garbage out, and most national-level data is complete garbage with an agenda or bias or naivety.

PxldLtd 1y ago
Anecdotes are not a very useful tool in discussions about generalisations. They provide little evidence aside from saying that it's a category of event that can exist. No one at any point has said citations are gospel. Just that anecdotes aren't adding much to the discussion at hand. If you've got issues with the cited data, be precise instead of casting general aspersions on academia.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Given that this is just a discussion between random strangers on an internet forum, I personally find both statistics and clear anecdotes, which GP provided, valuable in creating the richest perspective. This isn't Proceedings of Hacker News or parliament: we're writing ephemeral internet words and trying to enrich each other.
- zdragnar 1y ago
  Cited data on broad human population shows correlation at best, not causation. I posited a cause based on the lived experiences people shared with me. You're free to disagree with my conclusion, or to suggest an alternative cause. None of the cited data has actually done either of those things.
buellerbueller 1y ago
Then argue the methodology and data; anecdotes are great tools for sharing narratives, but a narrative based on bad data doesn't help anyone achieve good outcomes.
jimbokun 1y ago
> Whose to say "cited findings" have any more value than "anecdata". The history of human civilization.

PxldLtd 1y ago

Anecdotes are not a very useful tool in discussions about generalisations. They provide little evidence aside from saying that it's a category of event that can exist. No one at any point has said citations are gospel. Just that anecdotes aren't adding much to the discussion at hand. If you've got issues with the cited data, be precise instead of casting general aspersions on academia.

ethbr1 1y ago
Given that this is just a discussion between random strangers on an internet forum, I personally find both statistics and clear anecdotes, which GP provided, valuable in creating the richest perspective. This isn't Proceedings of Hacker News or parliament: we're writing ephemeral internet words and trying to enrich each other.
zdragnar 1y ago
Cited data on broad human population shows correlation at best, not causation. I posited a cause based on the lived experiences people shared with me. You're free to disagree with my conclusion, or to suggest an alternative cause. None of the cited data has actually done either of those things.

buellerbueller 1y ago

Then argue the methodology and data; anecdotes are great tools for sharing narratives, but a narrative based on bad data doesn't help anyone achieve good outcomes.

jimbokun 1y ago

> Whose to say "cited findings" have any more value than "anecdata". The history of human civilization.