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.
Here is something that I don't understand. I've tried for 20 or 30 years to understand it, (well, honestly, maybe I haven't tried that hard!). Why is it that so many people make claims and refuse to use data to support their opinions? I don't get it. There is a lot of data available on the internet, most of it free for the taking....why don't people use it???? I am talking about data about poverty, quality of life, the economy, child rearing, retirement, ....and on and on....
Why is that? Are people inherrently too lazy to use data? Are they so uneducated that they can't? Are they afraid that data will contradict their opinions? WHY?
Here is something that I don't understand. I've tried for 20 or 30 years to understand it, (well, honestly, maybe I haven't tried that hard!). Why is it that so many people make claims and refuse to use data to support their opinions? I don't get it. There is a lot of data available on the internet, most of it free for the taking....why don't people use it???? I am talking about data about poverty, quality of life, the economy, child rearing, retirement, ....and on and on....
Why is that? Are people inherrently too lazy to use data? Are they so uneducated that they can't? Are they afraid that data will contradict their opinions? WHY?
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can critically think and those that cannot. Unfortunately, those that cannot insist on demonstrating it. No, I do not think that they have ever learned. Ever. That is a shame.
Here is something that I don't understand. I've tried for 20 or 30 years to understand it, (well, honestly, maybe I haven't tried that hard!). Why is it that so many people make claims and refuse to use data to support their opinions? I don't get it. There is a lot of data available on the internet, most of it free for the taking....why don't people use it???? I am talking about data about poverty, quality of life, the economy, child rearing, retirement, ....and on and on....
Why is that? Are people inherrently too lazy to use data? Are they so uneducated that they can't? Are they afraid that data will contradict their opinions? WHY?
they dont want to look at data that does not support what they believe.
they dont want to look at data that does not support what they believe.
So, then, they are worse than fools. They are denying what may be the truth--just so they can "feel good" about their unsupportable beleifs. (NOTE: this is NOT about religion.)
Here is something that I don't understand. I've tried for 20 or 30 years to understand it, (well, honestly, maybe I haven't tried that hard!). Why is it that so many people make claims and refuse to use data to support their opinions? I don't get it. There is a lot of data available on the internet, most of it free for the taking....why don't people use it???? I am talking about data about poverty, quality of life, the economy, child rearing, retirement, ....and on and on....
Why is that? Are people inherrently too lazy to use data? Are they so uneducated that they can't? Are they afraid that data will contradict their opinions? WHY?
Or their personal reality does not reflect the data. Let's say that 10% of relationships end because of a woman's infidelity. I heard that number tossed around. I'm pretty sure I remember that they reported that the number that ended because of a man's infidelity is higher, but I digress.
Someone who had personally been cheated on would say, "See, a LOT of women cheat". Of course, we don't know how many women that might be. It might be the same five women even. (Just kidding, that's doubtful--but it does raise the point of the accuracy of the data). Someone who's never seen a relationship end because of a woman's infidelity--not their relationship, nor the relationship of anyone they know, would say, "See, women RARELY cheat." It's a matter of how you look at it, based on your own life experiences.
The national statistics on poverty don't really matter--if you're personally poor.
Another point is, again, the accuracy of the data. Sometimes, people who answer a poll have a particular axe to grind. So the "data" tends to be skewed--especially if the interviewer intentionally or unintentionally skews the interview. I had a job doing market research in a mall one summer. WORST JOB EVER! People tend to treat you like a pariah, because they're busy trying to do their own thing--even though they have the time to go to a mall. Maybe that's there's recreation time you're impinging on. But anyway, the people that take the polls want their voice to be heard. You can't get opinions from people who do NOT want to give them--even though that might change the results.
How do you get a sense of the homeless problem, if you can't even FIND half of them? They've fallen off the grid?
Most people are lazy. What you perceive to be a lack of critical thinking may just be them not wanting to waste a bunch of time finding the supporting data just to have some Internet jerk dismiss it out of hand. That doesn't mean that they don't want to get into discussions, though. Besides being lazy, people are also social animals...
Originally Posted by dcashley;12147533Why is it that so many people make claims and refuse to use data to support their opinions? I don't get it.
[b
There is a lot of data available on the internet, most of it free for the taking....why don't people use it????[/b]
I am talking about data about poverty, quality of life, the economy, child rearing, retirement, ....and on and on....
Why is that? Are people inherrently too lazy to use data? Are they so uneducated that they can't? Are they afraid that data will contradict their opinions? WHY?
I hear you. Not just data, how about stone cold facts? For example I can't "convince" people that a cat is an obligate (strict) carnivore People believe that what the mainstream advertising feeds them is fact, despite all the proof, and unnecessary misery, expense, ailments which would be so easily prevented....
(I keep trying to bold the second sentence -- it won't let me, keeps bolding the first.)
It should not be about personal reality. That would be subjective.
Life is subjective.
You might be the only person in your neighborhood that doesn't have a TV. But that's still YOUR reality. You can't relate to other people having a TV because you don't have one. Just because some people...or many people?...have a video game system at home does not mean that I know anyone who does. They may, or may not, but I don't know that about them. In my reality, I don't have one--so I don't know what it's like.
If crime has never affected you, statistics don't matter. Conversely, if crime HAS affected you, statistics don't matter either. They are immaterial in terms of your experiences, and how your experience shape your thoughts and beliefs.
So, Pandamonium...if 10% of all relationships fail because a woman cheated, is that a LARGE number of women, or a small number? Or can't you tell from the datum given?
You might be the only person in your neighborhood that doesn't have a TV. But that's still YOUR reality. You can't relate to other people having a TV because you don't have one. Just because some people...or many people?...have a video game system at home does not mean that I know anyone who does. They may, or may not, but I don't know that about them. In my reality, I don't have one--so I don't know what it's like.
If crime has never affected you, statistics don't matter. Conversely, if crime HAS affected you, statistics don't matter either. They are immaterial in terms of your experiences, and how your experience shape your thoughts and beliefs.
So, Pandamonium...if 10% of all relationships fail because a woman cheated, is that a LARGE number of women, or a small number? Or can't you tell from the datum given?
What was the sample? And is this a self reporting survey, and what were the questions asked and who controlled it?
There is a difference between objective and subjective. Now, if you got your 10% from a fashion magazine that drew from readers email, you are quite lacking. Your 10% is not jack.
Let's take something from crime. Let's say we do one of our 15 year old murders 9 year old or something similar threads. It starts out with like thus:
So and so said, "She did it because she wanted to know what it felt like." The one liner that if you don't actually go look at other articles, you would not even know that it was one line and from a testimony.
The OP says: This person is evil and should have just been locked up and have the death penalty because this is the reason. We are entirely too lenient on these little evil children. Because she is evil All children must be taught a lesson.
Are we accurately addressing the problem? I don't think so.
What we are seeing is someone in a fit of rage over a 3 paragraph article with no other information. That person also, without accurate information, is ready to lead a mindless mob to burn down every 15 year old in the country. Even though it is handled by individual states.
So, these very same issues are cropping up but they aren't addressed because people don't want to address the facts. That may be fine and dandy for your reality but it is scary as hell that we may have policies by someone that gets the information from a 3 paragraph article and is based on *feelings*.
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.
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.
People believe that what the mainstream advertising feeds them is fact, despite all the proof, and unnecessary misery, expense, ailments which would be so easily prevented....
