The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data

[FrogReaver]

Ah. I didn't realize that's what this thread was, "science":



Nope, no bias there. Just pure scientific inquiry.

My bad.

That’s an odd thing to read into a comment defending the technical people that produce the data as competent.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That’s an odd thing to read into a comment defending the technical people that produce the data as competent.

Funny I read it more as an attack on business people, with an aside to exclude the technical people from the overall...and evidence-free...put-down.

EDIT: "Careful Spell" for the win!

EDIT2: And the more I think about, the more I conclude that your reaction is even odder. Is it possible you don't even realize that you callously dismissed the intelligence/competence of non-technical people, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, while purportedly being "scientific"?

 

[FrogReaver]

Funny I read it more as an attack on business people, with an aside to exclude the technical people from the overall...and evidence-free...put-down.

EDIT: "Careful Spell" for the win!

Oh yes, it was definetely a put down of the business people. I think the technical vs business stuff is a fairly common thing. You don’t?

 

[TheSword]

I’m fine with the discussion moving on, but since you accused me of dismissing a relevant post I just want to figure out it’s actual relevance. So can you help me identify which thing I identified as a pitfall that the previous post you accused me of dismissing actually addresses?

I just did in the post you just quoted, regarding paid and non-paid sources. Data ha no agenda, how we interpret it requires context, common sense and debate.

 

[FrogReaver]

I just did in the post you just quoted, regarding paid and non-paid sources. Data ha no agenda, how we interpret it requires context, common sense and debate.

Maybe I’m just dense but your first post never mentioned or implied anything remotely close to paid-vs non paid sources did it?

you see I’m trying to figure out the relevance you think is in the first post that I’m accused of dismissing. Not the one you just now mentioned.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Oh yes, it was definetely a put down of the business people. I think the technical vs business stuff is a fairly common thing. You don’t?

I think the Dilbert-esque stereotype of business people is fairly common, yes. (To make sure I'm clear, it's the belief in the stereotype, not it's reality, that is common.)

From my own experience, I think technical people are clueless outside their domain at about the same rate as business people are clueless outside theirs.

 

[TheSword]

Maybe I’m just dense but your first post never mentioned or implied anything remotely close to paid-vs non paid sources did it?

you see I’m trying to figure out the relevance you think is in the first post that I’m accused of dismissing. Not the one you just now mentioned.

You could just read the post. In essence I said look at the data to decide where it is representative, where it isn’t. What questions can it be used to answer and where do we need to find supporting sources.

The problem is, you’ve attacked the data itself rather than criticizing the conclusions reached using the data.

I suspect you’re taking all this a little personally and becoming a bit invested in every single answer rather than letting the discussion flow. The whole thread has therefore got a bit toxic now and not as useful.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the Dilbert-esque stereotype of business people is fairly common, yes.

From my own experience, I think technical people are clueless outside their domain at about the same rate as business people are clueless outside theirs.

Cool. And I agree.

So given my belief that the chart is inaccurate what’s the issue with me assigning the blame for that inaccuracy on the business side and not the technical side? That seems like a reasonable thing to do , no?

 

[FrogReaver]

You could just read the post. In essence I said look at the data to decide where it is representative, where it isn’t. What questions can it be used to answer and where do we need to find supporting sources.

The problem is, you’ve attacked the data itself rather than criticizing the conclusions reached using the data.

I suspect you’re taking all this a little personally and becoming a bit invested in every single answer rather than letting the discussion flow. The whole thread has therefore got a bit toxic now and not as useful.

I’ve called the graphs they gave us data and attacked them. I have not attacked the dataset itself which is what your meaning of data appears to be

 

[Guest 6801328]

Cool. And I agree.

Hmm...really? It's possible you misread my intent...I edited for clarity.

So given my belief that the chart is inaccurate what’s the issue with me assigning the blame for that inaccuracy on the business side and not the technical side? That seems like a reasonable thing to do , no?

That's totally human. Just not very scientific.

I don't mean to defend the data or it's conclusions...I'll let @BadEye, seemingly the only person with actual information, do that. But this thread is rife with pre-existing belief that those conclusions are wrong, and arguments that are only intended to support that belief, not to engage in genuine inquiry.

So to wrap it in a shroud of "back off...I'm just doing science" is comical.