MovieChat Forums > capuchin > Replies
capuchin's Replies
We don't have an example. We have an anecdote; we have your subjective interpretation of a moment of familial discord. Presumably, your niece wouldn't tell the story in the same way. And your version of the event hasn't even persuaded everyone that your interpretation of the niece's behaviour is correct.
That's perfectly normal. We all do that in some way or another. And that's the point: anecdote is worthless as evidence.
But even if we accept your anecdote, it speaks only of your niece - not as an example or representative of <i>anything</i>. There's no useful pattern to be garnered from your anecdote. But, hey, guess what? There is in statistical data.
Oh, you prefer 'example' over 'representative'. I'll accept that, although I think it's a distinction without a difference. Nevertheless, it doesn't substantively alter my point.
But you do understand that it's an unreliable anecdote (We're hearing only from one involved party), open to interpretation (We've seen someone say that the niece doesn't seem like the asshole even from this prismatic version of the story) and that even if we accept it as objectively true and correctly interpreted (She <i>is</i> the 'asshole' or at least she is 'overly sensitive'), it says nothing about an <i>entire generation</i> but only about one niece?
These and other reasons are why wider studies carried out under scientific conditions will always trump anecdotal 'evidence'.
Yes. I like evidence. I like data. I like people who back up their opinions with evidence. And I like to think I know my own limitations and will bow to greater knowledge. And if two experts in their field disagree over an issue, I can listen to that debate without feeling that <i>I</i>, a non-expert, should take sides. It isn't a sports match.
<blockquote>When did we as a society stop valuing experts?</blockquote>
I'm not quite sure. Perhaps a lot of people never did and we just hear from them more now because of the internet. My own view - and to be clear: if someone produces solid evidence to the contrary, I'll <i>change</i> my view - is that we have a multi-generational failure to adequately teach critical thinking skills. But how and why? Dunno.
I give up. We're going around in circles. You're not getting it. That's fine. We'll leave it there.
<blockquote>In other words, the STUDY isn't a part of the QUESTION at all and is something completely INDEPENDENT of it. </blockquote>
In which case I would point you towards the study, because it's the best evidence we have to answer the original question.
<blockquote>Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about the Scientific METHOD, but you were still also asked to disregard the STUDY and express the way that YOU FEEL about the matter. </blockquote>
With respect, you <i>don't</i> wholeheartedly agree - or at least you don't fully understand the philosophy of scientific methodology. If you did, you wouldn't be able to ask someone to 'disregard the study' and talk about their feelings on the matter. The data is the data. The study is the best 'answer' we have unless and until someone supplies better data, which would arrive through a peer-reviewed study or finding a significant fault with the methodology of this one.
<blockquote>So the CONCLUSION one comes to is you're using the METHOD as a way to try to DODGE the question instead of presenting us with an ANSWER to the way that YOU FEEL. </blockquote>
Yes. That would be an erroneous assumption.
<blockquote>Because if EVERYONE were to ANSWER a QUESTION whenever they were ASKED one about the way they FELT, and claimed the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is the reason why they won't give an ANSWER to the QUESTION, wouldn't we be WORSE OFF rather than BETTER OFF??? </blockquote>
No. We'd be better off if people didn't ignore scientific data in favour of their own anecdotes, personal prejudices and gut instinct.
<blockquote>Because doesn't what you've done also STIFLE the DEBATE about whether or not one feels one GENERATION is MORE or LESS SENSITIVE than the other one???</blockquote>
I'm not stifling any debate. I'm merely pointing out that the only worthwhile debate would be one that didn't ride roughshod over the science. Yours or my 'feelings' on the sensitivity or otherwise of various generations is invalid in the face of data arrived at through a scientific methodology. This should be obvious to people.
And again, that it <i>isn't</i> is a fundamental issue for the world.
<blockquote>and won't that CONCLUSION also INEVITABLY be PARTIAL and LIMITED by the PERSPECTIVE of the INDIVIDUAL who reaches the CONCLUSION???</blockquote>
The aim of the scientific method is to eradicate the partial, limited perspective of the individual. Does it work perfectly? No. Because it's carried out by human beings - who have natural cognitive biases. There will be errors. That's why science is a conversation.
But the conversation must be scientific on both sides of the debate, because the scientific method - while not flawless - provides superior evidence and is a superior system for collecting and analysing evidence to... not-science.
Perspectivism supports the primacy of (objective) empirical research. And relativism certainly doesn't contradict it. Science doesn't make any claims to absolute, unchanging truth. That's religion's role.
Recently: Portrait of a Lady on Fire.
<blockquote>Well ... in GENERAL ... how do you feel about the QUESTION ... without taking the study into consideration: </blockquote>
I <i>feel</i> that the study must be taken into consideration - because it's superior evidence to anecdote, personal prejudice and gut instinct.
<blockquote>Would your (uninformed or unscientific) opinion be the CURRENT GEN is LESS or MORE SENSITIVE than people from the PAST???</blockquote>
I don't have an uninformed or unscientific opinion on the matter, because we have informed, scientific opinion to draw on - so an uninformed or unscientific opinion on the matter becomes unnecessary and invalid. I trust the scientific method.
This brings me full circle to my initial post: a much more fundamental problem in the world is that people <i>don't</i> trust the scientific method - or moreover don't understand the scientific method - that takes all the guesswork out of these things and provides an <i>evidential</i> and statistical framework for discussion and debate.
Many people seem to feel that their own subjective opinion is somehow equal to or perhaps even superior to the methodically collected evidence. And until we've overcome that human tendency towards cognitive bias through education... we won't have nice things.
Well, I don't have much to say on it. Again: it's a peer-reviewed study. Its rebuttal would come from a peer-reviewed study, not from me mouthing off on a message board.
The only comment that I would make is that the 'snowflake' appellation aimed at millennials and Gen Z doesn't usually seem to be applied due to the perceived <i>personal</i> sensitivity we might associate with narcissistic traits; it's generally a label used (chiefly but not exclusively by conservatives) to describe people they believe are 'overly sensitive' about issues surrounding social justice. These issues may or may not directly impact the person who raised the objection but certainly don't apply <i>only</i> to them, so either way would suggest to me a more <i>collective</i> worldview than an individualistic one.
Well, it's a study. A peer-reviewed study. In order for me to successfully disagree with it, I'd either have to devise my own study that contradicted the results and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, or I'd have to find flaws in the study's methodology.
Just having an opinion based on anecdote, personal prejudice or gut instinct isn't really a solid rebuttal to a peer-reviewed study. The fact that so many people consider it could be is actually a far more fundamental problem in the contemporary world than is any trumped-up intergenerational personality (or economic) conflict.
'S'true.
Ha. I thought it was pretty good too. Not quite sure why my brain went immediately to Django over Dracula though.
No idea.
It'd spoil <i>me</i>. If I'd been dedicating myself to knocking a ball about since I was a child and won a grand slam tournament at my second attempt, age 18, I'd probably sack it off and go out and party for the next twenty years. But this probably partially explains why I'm not a professional sportsperson. They tend to have a bit more focus, don't they?
Well, Andy Murray had to win a couple of grand slam tournaments before we gave him him a knighthood. But she'll probably get awarded a CBE. Which will mean a nice day out to see the Queen to get a medal hung around her neck.
And she is a shoo-in for BBC Sports Personality of the Year, both for her sporting achievement and for actually appearing to have a personality.
So, er, don't worry - parade or not - people will definitely be making a fuss of her.
Eh.
Depends what you're into, doesn't it? Personally, I find more stuff to watch on Amazon Prime than on Netflix - which seems to be better for television/streaming series than for movies. But I wouldn't claim there's a vast gulf of difference between the two services.
But I also probably find more that interests me on Mubi and BFI Player than either Amazon Prime or BFI... so, yeah: it's horses for courses really, innit? I don't think there's a definitive 'best'.
4. The Elephant Man.
18. Eyes Wide Shut.
21. 12 Monkeys
30. Back to the Future
50. Onibaba