search results matching tag: anecdote

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (56)     Sift Talk (4)     Blogs (6)     Comments (637)   

Who Is Stephen Colbert?

aaronfr says...

I put very little stock in these personality tests. In particular, I don't trust them because they only describe whatever personality you have in positive, flattering terms - a trait/tactic very similar to horoscopes. Of course you will like the result if you are being compared to Shakespeare and told that you are among the most brilliant minds in the known universe.

So the MBTI's practical use is overwhelmingly unscientific, and it's often criticized for this. Criticism ranges from the pragmatic fact that neither Jung nor Myers and Briggs ever employed scientific studies to develop or test these concepts, relying instead on their own observations, anecdotes, and intuitions; all the way to charges that your MBTI score is hardly more meaningful than your zodiac sign.


via Skeptoid

Fatty fatty two by four?

aaronfr says...

I've got a couple problems with this video and the common response across the internet:

Her story is just a series of anecdotes, not any kind of proof of industry standards.

Being rejected by "the industry" is a meaningless phrase. She was rejected by a couple of agents and customers, not "the industry".

But this is the big one...

Nobody said she was too fat. Nobody! But that is what everyone responds to, an argument that was not made. She was told that her hips are too big, that is not about body mass, that is about physiology. Diet and exercise can keep the fat off your hips, but it can't make them smaller.

What these agents are probably looking for is a more androgynous look. A smaller hip to waist ratio and bust to waist ratio. It's not about BMI at all.

Real Time - Dr. Michael Mann on Climate Change

newtboy says...

As a person who has had a solar system on their home for 9-10 years, let me say you are WAY off.
First, my system paid for itself in savings in under 8 years, and I missed out on a lot of rebates available today. My system should have another 10 years before I need to do major maintenance, by which time there will almost certainly be cheaper, better units to replace mine. In short, my system will save me from paying for around 10-11 years of energy costs, or to put it another way, 1/2 of my energy cost for a 20 year period.
I absolutely hate reading people talk about how bad solar is, and how it's not economically viable, when I know they are 100% wrong on those points from personal experience, not from anecdote and third hand miss-'information'.

Second, on top of the savings, I also saved thousands of dollars on lost groceries because my refrigerator doesn't stop working when the power goes out, which happens here around 1 week per year on average. My lights never go out, unlike my neighbors.

Asmo said:

While I am 100% on board with the "carbon bad, not carbon good, global warming = real, made by man and a real prick of a problem" message, the biggest fault made by people like Maher etc in prosecuting their case to the "sceptics" is reliance on bad information.

For example, the sums have been done on solar and wind, and generally speaking, wind is only borderline viable for supporting a society (and that's only if you don't add the cost of some form of buffering/storage). Solar, particularly home roof grade, is fucking awful, and essentially a waste of time compared to tracking mass production arrays. In terms of energy to build/install/maintain/remove, it barely pays for itself. Solar thermal is also more efficient (helios arrays etc), but the two best bang for buck technologies for producing massive amounts of power at a very low carbon cost are nuclear and hydro.

And they are two technologies that people seem to want to get rid of. Germany shuttered it's nuke capability after Fukushima (and added more coal capacity). Italy's solar market has fallen in a heap, France is almost carbon neutral only because it is predominately nuke powered. One of the original climate change warriors, Dr. James Hansen of Nasa, is fully supportive of nuclear power, and get's constantly lambasted by green types because they do not want nuclear power to play a part.

Refutation of solid science and willful ignorance is not solely the province of people who deny climate change, and it's no less deplorable.

Why are there dangerous ingredients in vaccines?

bremnet says...

Great post - thanks for taking the time to do this.

Between anti-vaxxers and homeopaths, I don't know which are worse at providing "facts" concocted from anecdote or imagination.

Mordhaus said:

Yes, I was wondering when you would trot out Hooker's paper and the 'CDC whistleblower" bit. You see, in the lack of clear scientific fact, conspiracy theorists tend to grab whatever they can to prove that they are right. I'll dissect your attempt right now.

First, Hooker's paper was covering the data involving African-American children with supposed predilection towards autism. The sample size was small, the math was ludicrous, and he incorrectly analyzed a cohort study. Because of the NUMEROUS failures to appropriately conduct a true scientific study, his paper was retracted. So, when exposed to the light, his theory was decidedly lacking in content and was canned.

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/27/journal-takes-down-autism-vaccine-paper-pending-investigation/

This incompetent study was the result, allegedly, of discussions between Hooker and a senior psychologist at the CDC named William Thompson. Hooker then teamed up with Andrew Wakefield to cherry pick bits to make it sound as though Thompson were confessing to some horrible crime of data manipulation to hide this “bombshell” result reported by Wakefield. Thus was born the “CDC whistleblower".

In February 2010, the General Medical Council in the U.K. recommended that Wakefield be stripped of his license to practice medicine in the U.K. because of scientific misconduct related to his infamous 1998 case series published in The Lancet, even going so far as to refer to him as irresponsible and dishonest, and in May 2010 he was. He is a now doing everything he can to prove his theories, like possibly illegal recording of conversations, so that he can regain some credibility. The guy is a hack.

Thompson has admitted to being prone to anxiety disorders, being delusional, and has shown that he is more scared of being 'the bad guy' then doing his job. His career is pretty much finished at the CDC, because he has shown that he will waffle if confronted by angry people who can't understand science. I feel sorry for him, but he has issues.

So, now we can address your link. A congressman, not a scientist, has received information from people who have been laughed out of the scientific community for multiple reasons. He sees buzzwords and decides to get ahead of the bandwagon, calling for further investigation and research. I can, of course, show you knee-jerk reactions by multiple members of congress similar to this, like Ted Cruz calling for immediate investigation into Planned Parenthood over the recent videos. You know, the ones that were chopped and spliced together to make it sound like PP was selling aborted babies? Do you see a pattern with the chop and splice for sensationalism? I hope you do.

In other words, you don't have any scientific facts. Like all anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists, you rely on a few items that seem to tie together to form a true fact, but they don't. When confronted with this, you will say that it's all big pharma and money trails, etc. Do you not see the fallacy in that logic? It's like saying that the the earth was created 9000 years ago...because RELIGION!

Btw, if you want to place your trust in politicians trying to be scientists, I leave you with this gem from former congressman Paul Broun.

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

How Olivia Munn Squeezes Into Her "X-Men" Costume - CONAN

"YOU are WORTHLESS" -the economy

kevingrr says...

New jobs have been created in the last six years but the economy started at such a low point it has taken a long time to recover. Presidents and politicians, republican or democrat, have only limited control over local, national, and international economies.

Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/12/05/in-ranking-presidents-by-job-creation-obama-still-lags/

In regard to degree majors students just need to have realistic expectations of what each degree prepares them for career and earnings wise. Even though majoring in education does not return the highest income it is still valuable and important that people study it. Similarly all the majors you list are important, but they may not have a great return on investment. However of the majors you listed Animal Science, Psychology, and Hotel Management all easily transition into either real jobs or graduate work that leads to real jobs. You seem to have picked majors at random.

https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/whatsitworth-complete.pdf

On a more anecdotal note I am seeing more "Hiring" signs in local shops and restaurants than I have in the past five years.

Drummers on Ringo Starr

A10anis says...

In the early 1980s I conned my way into a London chauffeur's job. I figured I could slowly learn my around. To my utter horror, my first job was to pick up Mr Starkey(Ringo) and his beautiful actress wife Barbara Bach from the Dorchester Hotel. I had no clue where the Fk I was going. He soon realised but he could not have been nicer or more understanding. Leaning forward and telling me which way to steer the Rolls, he put me totally at ease. He never told my boss, for which I was even more grateful than the substantial tip (which he would not let me refuse). I know it's a minor anecdote, but it gives a small insight into his decency.

The Daily Show - Wack Flag

SDGundamX says...

@Lawdeedaw

There's so much factually wrong here, I don't know where to begin. Let's start with this:

"That rape and mutilation has been going on for centuries but was significant in the Second Sino-Japanese War, a distinct war in and of itself."

Japan was in a state of almost complete isolation from the rest of the world between the years of 1633 and 1853. Even after the period of isolation ended, Japan was too busy for decades industrializing to be rampaging through China, as you suggest.

Japan DID eventually get involved in Chinese politics and in fact went to war with them in the First Sino-Japanese War... in 1894. There are no reports of atrocities committed by the Japanese military during this conflict. In fact, quite the opposite, Japan would release Chinese prisoners of war once they promised not to take up arms against Japan again.

The subjugation of Taiwan (which was ceded to Japan at the end of the first Sino-Japanese War but resisted Japanese rule) is a different story. However, accounts of what exactly happened are sketchy and most of the information we have is anecdotal. What can be gleaned from these anecdotes is that the Formasians put up a fierce guerrilla resistance campaign and that the Japanese tortured and killed anyone suspected of aiding the resistance. Still, it doesn't appear to have been on the same scale as the massacres which occurred during the Rape of Nanking.

As you mentioned, some of the most awful abuses were done during the Second Sino-Japanese War between 1937 and 1945 (the Rape of nanking occurred during this war). The abuse ended Japan's defeat in WWII.

What you can see here by doing the math, is that Japan's military abuses in China lasted a grand total of 50 years--from the subjugation of Formosa (Taiwan) to the end of World War 2--not "centuries."

Next, let's talk about misrepresentation. You seem to be implying that Japanese textbooks don't say that Japan is the aggressor in WW2 (or previous conflicts). As I pointed out in my last post, that is flat-out wrong. There is ONE textbook that was approved for use that whitewashes the history but that book has been ignored an not used by the vast majority of schools in Japan.

If you want to criticize Japanese textbooks, you could criticize them on the grounds that though they mention the terrible things that Japanese forces did, they don't go into a whole lot of detail. See this article for more information.

As far as Abe goes, what exactly has he said that is so terrible? Yes, he hangs out with revisionists. Yes, he has expressed his opinion that Japan should stop apologizing for WWII and start looking to the future instead of the past. Yes, he has said that the issue of "comfort women" should be re-examined in light of claims that some of evidence of their existence was fabricated. But these are not really radical statements by any means. And many people and newspapers do strongly and openly disagree with his statements, so this idea that Japanese people don't challenge him is completely wrong as well.

Yasukuni is a total clusterfuck of a situation. It is a shrine to ALL of Japan's war dead. This includes war criminals, but it also includes regular soldiers just doing their duty. In terms of Shinto beliefs, all of their souls now reside there. Basically, if you want to pay your respects to someone who died in military service in Japan, you have to go there to "see them."

Abe is a total dumbass (and the press let him know it) for going there because he knows already how China and Korea will perceive it, but on the other hand his going there does not mean in any way that he reveres the war criminals who are interred there. I have no idea what his personal views are but publically he has stated that he and his wife go there to remind themselves about the terrible toll war had on Japan the last time Japan engaged in it.

Finally, as for the link you provided, it was to a year-old opinion piece that lacks context. Abe made that statement at a time when it was revealed that some of the evidence of the existence of comfort women in Japan had been faked. It was later decided that the apology would not be changed. In fact, The Japan Times is reporting that it is likely that Abe will mention that "comfort women" had their human rights violated by Japan in his upcoming address on the end of WWII, so the comparison of him to Ahmadinejad is a bit far-fetched.

police detaining a person for no reason

GenjiKilpatrick says...

Lantern says...

"My buddy Fred pulled over a car with 4 people in it, every one was wanted!

ah the good old days

As far as what he pulled her over for...

you don't have to tell the truth on that one.

I once had a guy wanted on a felony drug offense, I told him I was arresting him for a parking violation.

Once I had the cuffs on him, I told him what it was for.."


It's called evidence, Lantern.
You know, that stuff you're supposed to collect before you accuse someone.

Like evidence of a "Law Enforcement Officer" - YOU - gloating and laughing about how you DON'T HAVE TO TELL THE TRUTH when detaining someone.

You're chuckling & reminiscing about the "good old days" when you got to lie in order to facilitate an arrest!!

OMFG you're a joke.

Your own personal anecdotes illustrate that..

police lie whenever the fuck they feel like they need to.

Why would I, @newtboy, or ANYONE EVER trust a cop?! O_o?!

lantern53 said:

damn newtboy, paranoid much?

Don't ever want to cross a street again. Ever

MilkmanDan says...

Man, that makes zero sense to me ... but thanks for providing links to studies, because all I've got to back up my tendency towards skepticism of the idea is gut feeling plus personal anecdotes.

Weird, wild stuff.

eric3579 said:

"The preponderance of independent research (in other words, research that was not funded by ticket camera vendors or units of government interested in justifying camera-based traffic enforcement) has illustrated that ticket cameras typically increase, not decrease, the number of accidents at controlled intersections."
List of red light camera studies

Red light cameras increase accidents

Ioan Gruffudd's Very Odd Name

GenjiKilpatrick says...

...this is one of the most boring interviews i've ever seen..

And I'm the sorta person who watches hours long lectures about politics, science & social issues for fun..

Nothin' like posh, straight-laced, long-winded, anecdotes about how mildly vexing it is when people mispronounce your ridiculously "quirky" Welsh name, ad nauseam. T_T

Longest three minutes EVAR.
Must be a CIA agent testing new torture techniques.. @_@

Black Man Vs. White Man Carrying AR-15 Legally

lantern53 says...

newtboy says he has nothing against 'those fucking cowards in blue'.

lol

Isn't this akin to anecdotal evidence? One video versus one video?

Here's a video of a black man, open carry, not even questioned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDQp2WJELTw

I'll bet if newtboy saw a black man open carry in front of his house, he'd get on the phone to 911 faster than you can say 'hypocrisy'.

Also...you'll notice the black man in this video was not shot because he complied with the officer's orders. That by itself gives the video some value.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Paid Family Leave

Mordhaus says...

They have less than half the debt for other reasons, many of which are due to the fact that they have an exportable national resource.

The 3 times wage is an assumption. Norway's average monthly salary is 4,451 Euros, equivalent to 5,056 US dollars. The average US salary is 3,640 US dollars per month. I have no idea where he got his numbers from, but these are factual and not anecdotal.

Their cost of living is ludicrous compared to ours, so you have to factor that in when you compare their slightly higher wages.

Consumer Prices in United States are 36.90% lower than in Norway

Consumer Prices Including Rent in United States are 34.18% lower than in Norway

Rent Prices in United States are 27.12% lower than in Norway

Restaurant Prices in United States are 52.31% lower than in Norway

Groceries Prices in United States are 25.87% lower than in Norway

Local Purchasing Power in United States is 14.29% higher than in Norway

Their system is also inherently unfair if you do not use the 'free' stuff. Don't have kids because you are responsible? Doesn't matter, you are paying for them. Don't get unemployed because you show up to work on time and do your job well, doesn't matter, you are paying for others. We do the same in the US, but it is far below the per capita level they pay.

What they don't get, and what some people here are obviously oblivious to as well, is that NOTHING is free. Someone pays, even if you don't. Their system simply nationalizes almost every single company and forces everyone to pay for everyone else, no matter what they do or how responsible they are. Also, note that they nationalized most companies, because a company in any type of free market system faced with draconian rules and corporate taxes like Norway's will simply cut their losses and offshore their work.

So, their system is only sustainable if the government owns the companies, everyone gives up most of their personal wealth, and they are lucky enough to have oil. Yeah, I am soooooo jealous of them.

newtboy said:

Even if all you say is true, you ignore the fact that they have less than 1/2 the debt per person...so if we taxed people enough to pay for the government we have, we would pay MORE than they do per person.
Also, if they make 3 times what average Americans do, yet are taxed at less than twice the percentage Americans are paid, they make WAY more take home pay than Americans. For that, they get a better standard of living, far better schools, free healthcare (so not 'taxed' up to $1000 a month for insurance) etc...and they have more cash to play with as well. So if they work hard and invest correctly, they can retire in 1/2 the time you could with the same nest egg, but far fewer bills to pay. It sounds like you might just be jelly.

Where are the aliens? KurzGesagt

ChaosEngine says...

Ok, now you're just being willfully stupid.

Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.
What favoured theory? I have no idea how life arrived in the universe. I suspect we never will. Even if we reproduce the exact conditions that gave rise to life and see single celled life created that doesn't mean that's how it started however many billions of years ago. I never claimed to know these things. Claiming to know things you can't possibly know is religions act, not sciences.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.
Citation needed.

There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible.
Already admitted. But there is a sound theoretical basis behind.

To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias
Did you somehow miss the part THAT YOU QUOTED where I said I can't prove god doesn't exist. I simply stated that it's incredibly improbable.

There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence
Really? Please point me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that shows this. Otherwise, all you have are anecdotes.

faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith

If I had "faith" in abiogenesis, that would be correct. But once again, I ask you do you understand the difference between what I think is probable based on observed facts and "taking something on faith"? I don't "believe" in abiogenesis. It seems like a reasonable explanation for the origin of life (certainly better than "magic beard in the sky did it"), but right now, it's just a hypothesis. Not even a theory. If we obtain some evidence one way or the other, I will switch my position. You're locked into yours regardless of the facts.

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe.Thermodynamics would like a word with you.

Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.
Jesus, that is so stupid I don't even know where to start. Do you actually read what you've written? Do you understand what the word "agency" means? Gasoline is the not the agency of a car, the driver is. A car without a driver does nothing (until google get their way anyway). And we can clearly see all the parts of a cars design where input is required from the driver and energy provided by the gasoline.

If you can show me a magical ghost car that drives without a driver or fuel source, I will believe in god. Meanwhile, we live in a universe that functions just fine without the requirement for any supernatural agency.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence
The bible is a bad story book written by tribal idiots who didn't have a clue about their world. I don't give a shit what it says. Call me when you have actual evidence.

shinyblurry said:

complete misunderstand of basic english

Ex-cops smoke weed



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon