You just repackaged the “but my feelings” movement, when your quote with its context says the exact same thing as others above said, that it’s probably the news. When a customer calls you, that their mouse doesn’t work, and you figure out that they cut its cord, and you apply this quote, it doesn’t mean that the problem is that they cannot cut the cord, but that they want a wireless mouse. You applied this as they would want to have a cord which can be cut with scissors.
You guys are really missing the point (responding to all the critics below, not just you). If you all had actually listened to the entire interview linked above instead of posting a hot take you would understand that it's not about "feelings". Rather it's evidence that the data is likely measuring something wrong or irrelevant, or not being gathered correctly. Thus a deeper factual and qualitative analysis is required.
Yes, I reflected exactly to that with everything. And that analysis was done many times before, and the results were that the problem was news… that’s why your response is about feelings, because the interview is exactly about what you tried to contradict.
Direct experiences are unfiltered. Statistics are often used to lie and deceive.
It's not a dig against math or statistics. It's a dig against the people using statistics. What do you do when, statistically, the majority of statistics you're given are lies, wrong, irrelevant, misleading, or out of context? You ground yourself in direct experience.
And direct experience is usually very very flawed in perception. Look into "eyewitness" testimony and how often people's perceptions are extremely flawed and easily manipulated.
Even simple events are difficult to evaluate. One podcaster I've listened to for a decade had an issue on a flight. He bumped into a passenger in front of him and words were exchanged. Eventually he was deplaned by the pilot. In his telling of the story, it was completely outrageous and unwarranted. But obviously to others involved, he was completely in the wrong, enough to be deplaned.
So no, "direct experiences" are definitely filtered.
For another example, my daughters feel unsafe walking alone at night in my city's downtown area. Whereas I, walking at the same time in the same area, don't feel any danger at all. Every human experience is mediated by our past history.
>Every human experience is mediated by our past history.
Also by others who may have an agenda.
What's more likely. That a person is afraid of walking alone in your city at night because of a personal experience (like being the victim of a crime) or what they heard from other people?
The context is right there in the link. Listen to the whole interview, you might learn something. It's pretty wild for a random HN user to label one of the top 10 most successful technology leaders of our time as "insane", lol.
I labeled the statement insane not the person. It's also a common slang to call an opinion insane without it being taken to a level of seriousness that you implied.
Given two sets of data: The statistics and your anecdotal evidence.
The probability of anecdotal evidence being correct must be lower than than the anecdotal evidence being incorrect when it conflicts with the statistics since the statistics come from anecdotal evidence.
Therefore, all other things being equal, if you are presented with data that conflicts with your anecdotal evidence the data has the higher probability of being correct.
> It's pretty wild for a random HN user to label one of the top 10 most successful technology leaders of our time as "insane"
It should probably happen more often.
Here, let me go. I think it is insane that Elon Musk took so much ketamine that he kept peeing his pants and then kept telling people about it. I think it is insane he's been promising that FSD is <2 years away for the past decade.
Jeff Bezos is a morally bankrupt oligarch; that does not, depending on who you ask, make him insane, but it does mean that I will interpret what he says through the lens of a sociopath who is used to hearing from sycophants.
Hero worship is pretty bad in tech circles. Just because Bezos has managed to win at the money game, doesn't mean he's a good person. He's pretty sociopathic. I know several people who worked with him very closely in the beginning years of Amazon and they tell stories...
We can redefine this with more statistical language. The claim would then be "When the likelihood of a sample is low, the sample is likely correct." Which is nonsense.
It is worth noting when you continuously are getting low likelihood samples, but the usual conclusion is that you have biased sampling. Maybe the model is bad, but in some sense that's not so different.
Let's go back to normal language. Anecdotally, a HN user might think a $100k/yr salary is not very much. But the data suggests that it is. Is the anecdote right?! No, we are just biased because we're comparing incomes in tech and often around the Bay area.
I think it is no surprise that one of the richest men in the world is out of touch. He is, by definition, a statistical anomaly. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>We can redefine this with more statistical language. The claim would then be "When the likelihood of a sample is low, the sample is likely correct." Which is nonsense.
Let's redefine it with this language:
"When statistics are used as PR, data gathering is a joke, state and police competence is cratering, and direct experience and observation tells you things are getting worse, things are getting worse".
I think you missed my 3rd paragraph (counting the one line).
The problem is the claim doesn't distinguish biased sampling from a biased model. The former is far more likely.
Just ask yourself which is more likely: "my experience is abnormal" or "everyone is experiencing the same thing I am"? In your friend group the latter might be more likely because you're similar locally and culturally. But across the state? Across the country? Across the globe? No, you'd be crazy to think experiences are typical. There's way too many variables at play and even if we were clones we should expect differences.
"When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right."
-Jeff Bezos https://lexfridman.com/jeff-bezos-transcript/#chapter6_amazo...