Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cor_Malek" data-source="post: 5344647" data-attributes="member: 91608">TBH, I'd dismiss it even if I had actual data backing it up from other sources. It's this very form of communication, or fact presentation they showed - that I'm against, because it creates awful rep to actual statistics and undermines very premise of providing information. It is something I see all around - in newsmedia, politics, and marketing. You wave around someone with authority and he just says stuff. A honoured professor pulling one stunt like that would be regarded as falling apart - rightfully so. But a talking head on TV, or beloved intertubes says X without any context - or, far more often, openly showing careless approach (yay online polls!) and everyone nods their heads. As to this piece of reporting - I look at it as the latter.If I seem to be overreacting - that's because I actually see impact of this mentality as part of my work as well as other, connected fields.If I presented a snappy opinion rather than pointing out that they formed numerical classification based on descriptive measuring tool; and that what little we know about their methodology suggests that it can be heavily tainted by cognitive biases like (but not limited to): anchoring and availability heuristic... That's because I, as a reader and consumer - feel that it's belittling that someone who's supposedly a good source of information believes I should be content to believe him based on description that would fit in a single Tweet.As some context - I endorse Steel_Winds post. Is it communicating different message? Not really. But it's form recognizes recipient as a thinking being that can ask questions. The ICv2 article presented absolutes based on doubtful source, and called it a day.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cor_Malek, post: 5344647, member: 91608"] TBH, I'd dismiss it even if I had actual data backing it up from other sources. It's this very form of communication, or fact presentation they showed - that I'm against, because it creates awful rep to actual statistics and undermines very premise of providing information. It is something I see all around - in newsmedia, politics, and marketing. You wave around someone with authority and he just says stuff. A honoured professor pulling one stunt like that would be regarded as falling apart - rightfully so. But a talking head on TV, or beloved intertubes says X without any context - or, far more often, openly showing careless approach (yay online polls!) and everyone nods their heads. As to this piece of reporting - I look at it as the latter. If I seem to be overreacting - that's because I actually see impact of this mentality as part of my work as well as other, connected fields. If I presented a snappy opinion rather than pointing out that they formed numerical classification based on descriptive measuring tool; and that what little we know about their methodology suggests that it can be heavily tainted by cognitive biases like (but not limited to): anchoring and availability heuristic... That's because I, as a reader and consumer - feel that it's belittling that someone who's supposedly a good source of information believes I should be content to believe him based on description that would fit in a single Tweet. As some context - I endorse Steel_Winds post. Is it communicating different message? Not really. But it's form recognizes recipient as a thinking being that can ask questions. The ICv2 article presented absolutes based on doubtful source, and called it a day. [/QUOTE]

Verification