3 ms·

I don't see any particular reason to become demotivated about statistics. Statistics are simply a tool, useful in developing an evidence-based understanding of

I don't see any particular reason to become demotivated about statistics. Statistics are simply a tool, useful in developing an evidence-based understanding of the world. You can accurately generalize about many things, and there are even statistical tools to help you determine how accurate your generalizations are and what kinds of variability in outcomes there are. It's not like the field was just invented yesterday and nobody has thought about these issues. If you're making decisions, evidence-based decision making can help you decide between different courses of action (A/B testing is an extremely simple example of statistics in action). Statistics can even give you some information about which factors can impact the likelihood of different outcomes. Maybe you think factor Y about your current situation (or your personality, or your product, or whatever) makes some outcome particularly likely. Is that actually true? Sometimes the honest answer is we don't have any way of knowing, because it's a unique situation. But I think people jump to that conclusion far too quickly. Often there is actually considerable information available, if you want to use it. I'd rather use existing data than cultivate some kind of "everything is my decision and I'm in control" mindset, when that would just be delusion in many cases: many things are beyond my control, but some are within it, and I think making effective decisions requires figuring out which is which.

dgreensp 14y ago
"Demotivated by statistics": This is the topic of the thread. Someone quotes a "failure rate" and it is demotivational because it suggests you will probably fail, when in fact that is a naive and over-simplistic interpretation.
- _delirium 14y ago
  I think the linked article is completely the wrong way to respond to pessimism. It's also a rather naive approach, reminiscent of daytime-TV self-help stuff, or perhaps certain libertarian novelists. The correct response to pessimism is not to promote delusional, unscientific "magical thinking" that fantasizes about how any individual can accomplish whatever they want with enough grit and determination etc etc, riddled with survivorship bias and lack of critical reflection. If a certain statistical interpretation is simplistic and naive, the response I'd like to see is a more sophisticated but still evidence-based interpretation. I don't think that "I'm a unique snowflake and I don't need evidence or science because of GRIT" is a good substitute.
  - dgreensp 14y ago
    Most of life is lived beyond where scientific evidence applies. The studies dry up, and what you have left is determination fueled by passion and commitment. Everyone is sitting around with the same feeble facts (e.g. percentage of companies in the US that fail annually, divorce rates, etc.), and if you are met with thinly-supported pessimism about your personal endeavor that you care about, you have to be prepared to supply thinly-supported optimism. When life gets real, there is no comfort in figures. Real (and wonderful) commitments such as marriage and a challenging work environment have taught me that. And the more you excel, the more unusual you become and the more statistics will predict your failure.

dgreensp 14y ago

"Demotivated by statistics": This is the topic of the thread. Someone quotes a "failure rate" and it is demotivational because it suggests you will probably fail, when in fact that is a naive and over-simplistic interpretation.

_delirium 14y ago
I think the linked article is completely the wrong way to respond to pessimism. It's also a rather naive approach, reminiscent of daytime-TV self-help stuff, or perhaps certain libertarian novelists. The correct response to pessimism is not to promote delusional, unscientific "magical thinking" that fantasizes about how any individual can accomplish whatever they want with enough grit and determination etc etc, riddled with survivorship bias and lack of critical reflection. If a certain statistical interpretation is simplistic and naive, the response I'd like to see is a more sophisticated but still evidence-based interpretation. I don't think that "I'm a unique snowflake and I don't need evidence or science because of GRIT" is a good substitute.
- dgreensp 14y ago
  Most of life is lived beyond where scientific evidence applies. The studies dry up, and what you have left is determination fueled by passion and commitment. Everyone is sitting around with the same feeble facts (e.g. percentage of companies in the US that fail annually, divorce rates, etc.), and if you are met with thinly-supported pessimism about your personal endeavor that you care about, you have to be prepared to supply thinly-supported optimism. When life gets real, there is no comfort in figures. Real (and wonderful) commitments such as marriage and a challenging work environment have taught me that. And the more you excel, the more unusual you become and the more statistics will predict your failure.