U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-08-2010, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,810 posts, read 17,852,850 times
Reputation: 9447

Advertisements

user_id wrote:
Right, but your evidence for that is that something happened to the car 3 years after it was purchased, so yes, you are suggesting that somehow your "gut" was able to predict the future. There are few if any mechanical problems that can exist for 3 years without causing a major problem, hence whatever happened to the car happened after it was purchased.
Ok my lack of clarity. I failed to point out that this car was already nearly three years old. It was a used car with about 17,000 miles on the odometer, with about 3 months remaining on the original 3 year warranty. It was selling for $9000 less than the same car would sell if it was new. If my memory is correct, the breakdown occurred about 4 or 5 months after the car was purchased. At any rate it was shortly after the 3 year warranty expired.

No my gut did not predict the future. At the most, my gut was picking up on a possibility. The uneasy feeling in my gut was simply letting me know that something was not quite right about it. I agree with you 100% that the fate of the car was not predetermined when it was on the lot. Perhaps IF I would have purchased it, I would have driven it differently and the car would not have broken down. All I'm saying is that I had an uneasy feeling about purchasing the car. I trusted my feeling and decided not to buy the car....AND I'm glad I listened to my gut. And it's the same thing with regard to lifestyles in the 60's and 70s'. Somehow the numbers are not telling the whole story, so this is another situation where I am defering to my own experience. Maybe I'm totally wrong and my memory is skewed, but so what! Having a statistically accurrate picture would not enhance the quality of my current life anyway, and would not change anything about my past.

Perhaps you are a baseball fan. In that case you probably know that every team in MLB places a tremendous amount of reliance upon statistical analysis. If the talent level on two competing teams is equal, or close to being equal and they are both using statistical analysis to form their strategies, everything is pretty much equal on the playing field. One of the common ways that a team gets an edge is when the manager gets a hunch, pays attention to it, and decides to play his hunch and goes against the numbers, and the game is won because of this. This is a frequent occurrence. It's certainly not infallable, but it works. Most of the baseball managers in the hall of fame are managers known for playing their hunches. These guys used this silly and irrational nonsense to earn millions along with a coveted spot in Cooperstown.

Last edited by CosmicWizard; 11-08-2010 at 08:22 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2010, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,470 posts, read 18,555,058 times
Reputation: 4343
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
No my gut did not predict the future. At the most, my gut was picking up on a possibility. The uneasy feeling in my gut was simply letting me know that something was not quite right about it.
Yes and if you took the time to actually think about matters you may have actually discovered what was bothering you about it, but no, instead you want to put emotional impulses on the same epistemic level as a rational analysis. As I said before, I have no problem with "gut feelings", they are just emotional impulses and can point your rational self into new directions, what I have a problem with is pretending that "gut feelings" (or similar things) have the same epistemic value as a rational analysis.

You keep talking about "numbers", but as I said before, you are just painting a caricature. The real issue is the use of reason, which may or may not involve the use of "numbers". If the car has been sitting on the lot for awhile and the dealer kept lowering the price, that provides at least some evidence that the car may be a lemon. There may have been other, more subtle clues as well, for example the sales man may have been more pushy than normal.

Anyhow, your "gut feelings" are just unanalyzed information, the problem with utilizing and acting on these feelings is that humans have numerous psychological biases that can distort matters, it is only by analyzing the issues that the truth may be discovered. Furthermore, in today's world companies exploit every human weakness to gain an edge, relying on your "gut feelings" is much more dangerous today than it was back when were were living in the bush.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
Perhaps you are a baseball fan.
No, and I don't know anything about it. But your example is once again a big mathematical fallacy. Although the two teams have the same aggregate talent, the individuals in the teams do not. One player may be weak, another very strong, etc, a manager can take advantage of the exact distribution of talent within the team. You are also appealing to your silly caricature of "going by the numbers", the issue is the use of reason not numbers.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,810 posts, read 17,852,850 times
Reputation: 9447
user_id wrote:
what I have a problem with is pretending that "gut feelings" (or similar things) have the same epistemic value as a rational analysis.
I am not saying that that "gut feelings" (or similar things) have the same epistemic value as a rational analysis. What I have said and will say again is that there are certain situations when I choose to honor the wisdom of my gut instincts rather than rationality. There have been many times in my life when I have acted in this manner with very favorable outcomes...even if it is irrational as you are fond of saying...SO WHAT! It works for me.


user_id wrote:
Anyhow, your "gut feelings" are just unanalyzed information, the problem with utilizing and acting on these feelings is that humans have numerous psychological biases that can distort matters, it is only by analyzing the issues that the truth may be discovered.
That's the beautiy and power of intuition as I see it...it is indeed unalyzed information which eliminates the analysis paralysis that oftentime befalls those who can see only as far as rational analysis takes them. You see a problem, and I see a valuable tool. I know that all of us have numerous psychological biases and I have said that that in several prior posts. I have a bias favoring intuition and irrational behaviour in certain situations, while you have a bias favoring statistical analysis and rational behaviour in the same situation. Obviously we are wired differently. I really don't care which way is better, or even IF one way is intrinsically better than the other. Just pointing out that people see this big old world of ours in many different ways. We could argue about who is right and who is wrong until the cows come home.

Last edited by CosmicWizard; 11-08-2010 at 01:22 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,470 posts, read 18,555,058 times
Reputation: 4343
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
I am not saying that that "gut feelings" (or similar things) have the same epistemic value as a rational analysis. What I have said and will say again is that there are certain situations when I choose to honor the wisdom of my gut instincts rather than rationality.
And naturally these two statements are contradictory, if thought that the "gut feeling" had no epistemic value you won't act on them, you may as well flip a coin. You act on "gut feelings" precisely because you believe that they not only can lead to the truth, but they do so better than the use of reason.

Of course, those actually aware of human psychology know how this really works, people revert to their "gut feelings" when reason leads to things they don't like or don't want to believe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
I have a bias favoring intuition and irrational behaviour in certain situations, while you have a bias favoring statistical analysis and rational behaviour in the same situation.
And to say it again, everyone has a bias towards "intuition" on all levels, there is no human bias towards rationality, rather the opposite. Pursuing and acting on reason often involves going against your "gut feelings". Acting on "gut feelings" is merely acting like a common animal, you are utilizing the most primitive parts of your brain, the use of high reason is what makes us different than every other animal. But you are free to carry yourself as an animal, people have been doing it throughout history, its after all the basis of pretty much every ill in our society.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2010, 06:47 AM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 20,504,393 times
Reputation: 15749
"Statistics" (quantitative analysis) tell us (at least Obama's "statistics" do) that the economic recession "ended" in June 2009. Statistics show that the official unemployment here is less than 10%. Qualitative analysis and empiracle evidence tell a different story.

It will be interesting to see what people are posting here this time next year.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2010, 07:28 AM
 
9,856 posts, read 14,324,136 times
Reputation: 5461
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
"Statistics" (quantitative analysis) tell us (at least Obama's "statistics" do) that the economic recession "ended" in June 2009. Statistics show that the official unemployment here is less than 10%. Qualitative analysis and empiracle evidence tell a different story.

It will be interesting to see what people are posting here this time next year.
So you seriously rely on word of mouth and hearsay above facts?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2010, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,470 posts, read 18,555,058 times
Reputation: 4343
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
"Statistics" (quantitative analysis) tell us (at least Obama's "statistics" do) that the economic recession "ended" in June 2009. Statistics show that the official unemployment here is less than 10%. Qualitative analysis and empiracle evidence tell a different story.
Ugh.... Firstly, recessions are not dated by the government, rather a private organization, namely NBER:

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee

The end of an recession, does not mean the return to "good times" but merely that the economy has stopped declining.

Secondly, Obama has nothing to do with unemployment statistics, these are reported using the same methodology they were during Bush. In both cases there are numerous measures, the number you hear on the news is U-3 and doesn't tell you about underemployment and things of that nature.

Qualitative analysis is not going to tell you much about the macro-economic picture, although it can be useful to get a matter understanding what is happening "on the ground level". Quantitative and qualitative research are going to tell you about different things,they are not conflicting methodologies.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2010, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 20,504,393 times
Reputation: 15749
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
So you seriously rely on word of mouth and hearsay above facts?
I am not stating personal opinion. I am merely pointing out different ways of gathering and looking at information, and cautioning about sampling methods in studies (i.e., corporate and gov't "research" can slant their findings in any number of ways, and they are usually the ones conducting the studies --hardly an "objective" study done by "disinterested" researchers).

Research on the state of anything can involve methods other than quantitative analysis. I would not call what a number of economists are warning us about "word of mouth" and "hearsay." These sources are as good as any out there. Nor would I call the huge numbers of jobless, underemployed, homeless, foreclosed-upon, and elderly on diminishing resources "my opinion," "hearsay," or "word of mouth." To imply that is nearly laughable if it weren't so disturbing. You could state "we are winning the war on cancer" (statistically) while more and more people get cancer every year and the nation's overall health rate declines.

Oh and what "facts" are you referring to? The "official unemployment rate"?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2010, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,470 posts, read 18,555,058 times
Reputation: 4343
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
I would not call what a number of economists are warning us about "word of mouth" and "hearsay."
No, you'd call it speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
These sources are as good as any out there. Nor would I call the huge numbers of jobless, underemployed, homeless, foreclosed-upon, and elderly on diminishing resources "my opinion," "hearsay," or "word of mouth." To imply that is nearly laughable if it weren't so disturbing.
This is just a strawman, nobody is saying this, with an unemployment rate near 10% there are going to be millions of people that are jobless. Quantitative methods are going to tell you how wide-spread the unemployment problems are, qualitative methods will tell you about the nature of the unemployment problems. Quantitative and qualitative are brother and sister, they don't conflict with each other, rather they are used to research different sorts of questions.

Anyhow, in this thread you have not cited a single piece of research quantitative or qualitative, your rant here is just an excuse to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of the actual facts.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2010, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,810 posts, read 17,852,850 times
Reputation: 9447
user_id wrote:
No, you'd call it speculation.
I agree that it may be speculation, but speculation is your word, not newenglandgirls. I notice that you have a habit of interpreting what people say thru your filters then telling them they are saying something they haven't said. This behaviour is not only inaccurrate but also rather condescending. You seem like a really smart guy with alot of insight to share, but your condescending style puts people on the defensive. I don't think you really want to do that, but that's how you often come across.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top