ezio6
Pareto
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2020
- Posts
- 1,506
- Reputation
- 1,238
What is your source” bros are trying to sound intelligent through them requiring evidence and statistical purity on a subject matter which requires cross disciplinary understanding.
But most people are falling victim of their own strength. Either they know one subject matter very well, at the expense of the others. Or they are trying to make that subject matter (social sciences) fits into a framework which is poorly suited (hard sciences).
When it comes to Statistics, unlike physics there are more freedoms in making formulas, thus it can lead to more mistakes, or if you are cynical enough, if makes it easier to craft narratives through that flexibility.
Some people will think, after doing a Coursera Statistics Foundation degree, they understand data, they will go on into the few concepts they know as it makes them feel relevant.
The question one needs to ask, is how much can we rely on a method if the data is weak?
You may have the right sample, the right randomness and you can even try as much as you can to be as free of bias in your criteria selection as possible, but the output will be poor at best, misleading at worst, it the qualitative side is not there.
What they are really displaying is the most juvenile form of thinking.
Firstly, the format under which the data is presented is more important than the quality of that said data.
In a way it is understandable, we hand degrees like candies where most people have no rights to go to universities, because they lack the ability to actually question things.
They are mostly there for one reason, how good are they at repeating a lesson they have been taught.
This creates what Nassim Taleb called the Intellectuals Yet Stupid. (Further on that subject in another post)
It made people think they are more intelligent than they actually were with some BS(c) degrees most of the time.
We taught them the idea of the different biases we have. And although some bias hold truth, it ends up making people self-doubt their gut feeling overall, turning themselves in the unsure over-thinkers and non-doers. In other words little b*tches.
Why do you think universities turn so many men into soyboys. This is one of the processes. In the business world, you will hear employers saying how little autonomy many graduates have when it comes to applying themselves at work. Why? Because they don’t trust their own judgment.
What does that lead to?
2) Delegating decision-making to Authority over their capacity of making one’s own mind through empirical data, or through being bold enough making mistakes and learning from them. But instead they are too ego bound to the little knowledge they have and testing it against real world or the prospect of unlearning what they were taught is too high a risk to bear for their identity.
“I am E-D-U-C-A-T-E-D”
The same “what is your source?” Bros would the ones blindly accepting orders from the authority figure in the Milgram experiment.
These are the people who have a misplaced view of their knowledge or intelligence because:
1) of the narrowness of their field of expertise
2) because they can’t see the main bias they are suffering from trying to avoid so many… aka the authority bias.
Turning themselves into kids play acting as adults.
An adult goes on the field, draws his own conclusions, sees if it matches with the data, introspect then to see what he has missed through potential existing biases, accept nuances are more likely to be there than clean cut truths.
Or you can be a wanker looking at studies all day long like a 16yo porn addict who thinks reality is through what he sees on the screen. And will arm chair comment on a subject he has no clue of but knows how to look superficially at data
But most people are falling victim of their own strength. Either they know one subject matter very well, at the expense of the others. Or they are trying to make that subject matter (social sciences) fits into a framework which is poorly suited (hard sciences).
When it comes to Statistics, unlike physics there are more freedoms in making formulas, thus it can lead to more mistakes, or if you are cynical enough, if makes it easier to craft narratives through that flexibility.
Some people will think, after doing a Coursera Statistics Foundation degree, they understand data, they will go on into the few concepts they know as it makes them feel relevant.
The question one needs to ask, is how much can we rely on a method if the data is weak?
You may have the right sample, the right randomness and you can even try as much as you can to be as free of bias in your criteria selection as possible, but the output will be poor at best, misleading at worst, it the qualitative side is not there.
What they are really displaying is the most juvenile form of thinking.
Firstly, the format under which the data is presented is more important than the quality of that said data.
In a way it is understandable, we hand degrees like candies where most people have no rights to go to universities, because they lack the ability to actually question things.
They are mostly there for one reason, how good are they at repeating a lesson they have been taught.
This creates what Nassim Taleb called the Intellectuals Yet Stupid. (Further on that subject in another post)
It made people think they are more intelligent than they actually were with some BS(c) degrees most of the time.
We taught them the idea of the different biases we have. And although some bias hold truth, it ends up making people self-doubt their gut feeling overall, turning themselves in the unsure over-thinkers and non-doers. In other words little b*tches.
Why do you think universities turn so many men into soyboys. This is one of the processes. In the business world, you will hear employers saying how little autonomy many graduates have when it comes to applying themselves at work. Why? Because they don’t trust their own judgment.
What does that lead to?
2) Delegating decision-making to Authority over their capacity of making one’s own mind through empirical data, or through being bold enough making mistakes and learning from them. But instead they are too ego bound to the little knowledge they have and testing it against real world or the prospect of unlearning what they were taught is too high a risk to bear for their identity.
“I am E-D-U-C-A-T-E-D”
The same “what is your source?” Bros would the ones blindly accepting orders from the authority figure in the Milgram experiment.
These are the people who have a misplaced view of their knowledge or intelligence because:
1) of the narrowness of their field of expertise
2) because they can’t see the main bias they are suffering from trying to avoid so many… aka the authority bias.
Turning themselves into kids play acting as adults.
An adult goes on the field, draws his own conclusions, sees if it matches with the data, introspect then to see what he has missed through potential existing biases, accept nuances are more likely to be there than clean cut truths.
Or you can be a wanker looking at studies all day long like a 16yo porn addict who thinks reality is through what he sees on the screen. And will arm chair comment on a subject he has no clue of but knows how to look superficially at data
