Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 21:30:58 GMT -5
Here's another from my personal life. I have a German friend who lived here in NYC for several years (he's back in Germany now). He's notorious late to everything (and sometimes fails to show up at all to engagements), and his apartment was always a mess.
Now. I lived in Germany for a while, so I know that these are very far from being universal traits among Germans -- if anything, it is the reverse. (The old stereotype about Germans being extremely concerned with order and timeliness has some truth in it, in my own experience.) But a couple of people in our social group (it was an athletic club) knew only one German -- him. And they persisted in referring to the traits of being late and sloppy as "German", and to him as evidence that the old stereotype of clean, orderly Germans was ridiculously wrong. I heard this repeated a billion times. It was quite annoying.
Oh, and then there's the "I met a smelly backbacker from Europe, so obviously they never bathe over there."
People are really fond of anecdotal evidence when it comes to people from other countries and cultures.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 18, 2018 23:16:44 GMT -5
As an aside, I'm not trying to look at people who are THIS "outside the mainstream" in their beliefs, but I thought this vid was really interesting:
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 19, 2018 9:22:16 GMT -5
I think people--in general--are more likely to use anecdotal evidence when the issue under consideration impacts them directly.
For instance, Amadan's vaccine story (and his poker examples, really). I happen to feel exactly the same way about flu vaccines, when it comes to me.
Many of these people--who would use anecdotal evidence for issues that impact them directly--would scoff at anecdotal evidence, when it comes to questioning other issues where they have no direct stake. So the theoretical vaccine-avoider-because-of-anecdotal-evidence would freely scoff at the Miami-just-had-its-coldest-day-ever-therefore-there-is-no-global-warming argument because it's based on anecdotal evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 10:01:51 GMT -5
I think one is also more likely to rely heavily on anecdotal evidence when one has relatively little experience/knowledge on a subject, and one or two very memorable anecdote(s).
Example: years ago, I tried a grocery delivery service. It was a freaking disaster. The delivery was late, they forgot several vital items, the avocados they sent were hard as a rock when I'd specified they be ripe (they gave you the option of hard or ripe), one thing was past its sell-by date, etc., -- and it was a real problem because I needed the stuff for a party and was working a zillion hours a week at the time, so it was difficult to find time to do a last minute grocery run. The service couldn't send replacement stuff before the party. I ended running to the store late at night, which took an hour I did not have. Also, they gave me more hassle than they should have to simply get a refund rather than a replacement delivery three days later.
I never tried another grocery delivery service, and likely never will. Yeah, I know tons of my friends use them and swear by them. Not me. And I've told about eleventy million friends about my bad experience. (To be fair, if the service had quickly repaired their error instead of saying it would take three days, I might feel differently.) That one anecdotal experience of mine outweighs (emotionally, I guess) all the information I have saying that such services are generally pretty reliable. Yeah, forget it. I have stores in my neighborhood and I'll go there.
This might NOT be true if it had been the hundredth time I used a grocery delivery service. But it was the first, it created a memorable hassle, and it left a lasting impression.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 10:48:51 GMT -5
Oh! Don't forget stranger danger!
People hear anecdotes of children being kidnapped or abused by strangers, and disproportionately fear it will happen to their kids, so they've locked down childhood to the point where they're actually depriving their kids of valuable experiences and making their own lives a pain in the ass. I'm continually astonished at how many things kids were normally allowed to do when I was a kid that seems to be unthinkable now.
Facts demonstrate that things are actually SAFER overall than when I was a kid. And the vast majority of Bad Things that happen to kids, alas, are done by relatives and acquaintances, not Evil Strangers. But parents simply will not believe this because (thanks to the internet and the constant barrage of stories from all over the country) they are constantly hearing anecdotes from all over the country, making them believe that the world is far more perilous and evil strangers the biggest danger to their kids. Also, they're predisposed to react to these anecdotes because they love their kids and fear for their safety. (Fear, I think, is another factor that helps anecdotes take hold.)
ETA:
I wanna be a science-y person and do studies on stuff!
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 19, 2018 12:40:00 GMT -5
Oh! Don't forget stranger danger! People hear anecdotes of children being kidnapped or abused by strangers, and disproportionately fear it will happen to their kids, so they've locked down childhood to the point where they're actually depriving their kids of valuable experiences and making their own lives a pain in the ass. I'm continually astonished at how many things kids were normally allowed to do when I was a kid that seems to be unthinkable now. Facts demonstrate that things are actually SAFER overall than when I was a kid. And the vast majority of Bad Things that happen to kids, alas, are done by relatives and acquaintances, not Evil Strangers. But parents simply will not believe this because (thanks to the internet and the constant barrage of stories from all over the country) they are constantly hearing anecdotes from all over the country, making them believe that the world is far more perilous and evil strangers the biggest danger to their kids. Also, they're predisposed to react to these anecdotes because they love their kids and fear for their safety. (Fear, I think, is another factor that helps anecdotes take hold.) ETA: I wanna be a science-y person and do studies on stuff! I was actually thinking about this.
So there was a real attempt at kidnapping at the local high school near me. All the years, all the kids, one kidnapping.
It was back in 2005, my kids weren't anywhere near high school. However, my wife remembers it and will be very cautious about letting the kids or foster kids say walk home. Of course, the kids can go hang out. Yotham had walked all around downtown.
However, saying you're taking precautions because of 1 incident is different from feeling like it's going to happen.
Example. Don't get into a car with a stranger, especially if you're a kid.
When I was in something like 5th grade, more or less, a guy pulled up in his car to me as I walked home. I lived 3.5 blocks from the school. He asked, since I was young and strong looking (I was always talker than most kids my age, but yet I'm not very tall as an adult.) would I like to make some $ by bringing things down for him from his attic.
I said no. I heard later that week the school warning all of us that a man was being reported to be doing all of that. I did tell my parents. So I think it's reasonable to think something bad might have happened if I got into that car. I could be wrong.
It's reasonable to use that story to tell kids not to get into a car with someone you don't know. It's not reasonable to tell kids if a car passes you by, flip out and run away yelling "Stranger" at the top of your lungs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 12:49:15 GMT -5
Agree.
And I'd submit, not reasonable to forbid your kids to walk alone in your neighborhood, ever (unless they are very small or your neighborhood is wildly dangerous).
When I was six, I walked alone or with other kids to school, four blocks away. I went alone to my friend's houses in the neighborhood. By the time I was twelve, I was permitted to walk to main street, a mile or so away. All the neighborhood kids used to play, unsupervised, in a field nearby.
Now, my nieces and their friends get driven EVERYWHERE. There is pretty much no such thing as unsupervised play, even for bigger kids. There is a park at the end of their cul de sac, very quiet, very safe, street, but they cannot go to it without an adult. Everything is playdates with parents driving them. And it's mostly out of fear that some stranger might kidnap, molest, or hurt them. Which, yes, could maybe happen, but it's pretty damn unlikely. Better to teach them "don't get in a car with strangers, don't let someone touch you in a bad way, even a family friend or relative, tell me right away if someone tries, etc." I had that well drummed into my head by a paranoid mom who hung over me more than some parents did -- but I had way, way more freedom than most kids seem to have today. It's a bit crazy, in my opinion, and not good for the kids. I've talked to my brother and friends with kids about it, and they all cite stranger danger. I have sent them stuff about the statistics on this, but though they are surprised to hear how rare it is, it makes no difference to how they feel about it.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 19, 2018 20:10:56 GMT -5
Most "eat the rich" schemes are justified on anecdotal evidence. People hear that CorpX had $Xbillion profits, don't apply a denominator, and think that's outrageous... maybe even 36%. Astonishing Number: Americans Think Corporate Profits Are 36% Of SalesOr they'll quote the outrageous salaries and perks of a well-connected Fortune 500 exec and curse the outrageous salaries of chief executives. When new regulations are proposed, they invariably consider them from the standpoint of "reining in" those (well-connected) Fortune 500 companies, not the small businessperson who make up the vast majority of businesses in the country and can't afford the dedicated teams of lawyers and accountants that are the staple of their mega-competitors.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 19, 2018 20:20:22 GMT -5
I'll plead guilty to using anecdotal experience to avoid flu shots. The last flu shot I got, many, many years ago, DID make me feel sick for a few days. And I have never gotten the flu since, despite never getting a shot. Yes, I know this is allowing personal experience to trump probability. Yes, I know I should get a damn flu shot. If you play poker competitively, like I do, you will be amazed at the kind of reasoning even experienced players will use to make a (statistically) bad bet or call. "9s have been hot tonight." "I'm on a heater." "AK never pays off for me." Etc. The flu is particularly bad this year. Here's some more anecdotal - Our hospital just had a 52 yo previously healthy guy die - no significant past medical history, came in with the flu went into ARDS and died. Even though the shot isn't that effective (estimate 30% this year), it's better than nothing. Please be careful.
|
|