[s_08]

Just read this in the ASQ handbook -
"The plural of Anecdote is NOT data"
Often we come across people taking decisions, forming opinions based on a few responses or experiences and assume it to be a rational decision based on data...

Whats your opinion ? have you come across such cases ?

[Lakota]

Originally Posted by s_08

Just read this in the ASQ handbook -
"The plural of Anecdote is NOT data"
Often we come across people taking decisions, forming opinions based on a few responses or experiences and assume it to be a rational decision based on data...

Whats your opinion ? have you come across such cases ?

Just about everyday of my career. It is human nature. Many (IMHO) will use this technique to justify and validate to get what they want or move others to their way of thinking.

You see the samething in the media with commercials, with politicians, with the news media, -- with people in general. At least that is my view.

In my psychology training this was also known as making "blanket statements" -- using a little data or facts to cover a whole area under discussion, group of behaviors, and even peoples in general.

Isn't the point here not to accept things at face value, but rather check the facts for yourself? I was shocked to learn data used in a political race was correct, however it covered only a very small percentages of the poplulation from which it was drawn and was used in an attempt to influence the voters across many other populations -- not represented by the data.

What are your thoughts as a result of having read this article? Is the author correct in his/her hypothesis? What about the data used in scientific methods (medical research as example)? Isn't it designed to be accurate, repeatable and reproducible?

Perhaps we might be better off saying, "with the few data points I have, it suggests blah, blah. However, "I feel or think" it is mostly accurate. See, most of us naturally operate from a posture of "perception". For the holder of that perception it is most often identified for them as "reality".

Similar to paradigms, we holders of perceptions likely will reject or filter incoming information if it does not mirrow those perceptions or paradigms we hold as true. At least this has been my experience. How about you?

Good discussion.

Blessings,
Lakota

[sparky]

Excellent first question.

I think it's true that people do consider experiences as data, and it's wrong (IMHO) in the absolute sense.

I see nothing wrong with drawing on experience, learning from the past, but this ought to be backed up with independent and honest data.

Many will argue that what has happened in the past is fact and is therefore relevant and robust data, but is it? Don't we all see things differently, don't we all view from a different perspective?

I think Lakota offers sound advice suggesting checking the "facts" and where they come from. There are plenty of cases where the truth has been obscured by "fact."

Darrell Huff wrote an interesting book called, "How to lie with statistics." Possibly well worth an hour of your time.

[prabh]

Originally Posted by sparky

Excellent first question.


Many will argue that what has happened in the past is fact and is therefore relevant and robust data, but is it? .

The problem with previous experience being used to influence current decision is that people often overlook the influencing environments which may have impacted historical outcomes, these influences maynot be prevalent in the future and hence using this as a baseline is not accurate...

[s_08]

I think we need to distinguish between decisions based on experience and those based on real data.

While it is human to learn from others experiences, it might be fatal to treat these as "data" & assume/claim the process to be rational, data based decision making.

[netneanderthal]

Here's my two cents on this interesting discussion thread:

While all of this in some way seems to pertain to a halo effect of generalization based on a small set of observations, I have seen something a little worse... Not only are decisions taken on a small set of observations, but I have seen the halo effect being applied thanks to the experience faced in a smaller subset of these observations...

So the decision maker's take on the small data set is "This is interesting, but I have seen that this is not the case - my observations of the data is blah blah blah, particularly based on what we saw the last couple of times"...

Talk about compounding effects...

On a lighter note to the mods - we really need to get an emoticon of someone banging their head against the wall to adequately capture forum member emotions when describing our interactions with people in our organizations...

[prabh]

On a lighter note to the mods - we really need to get an emoticon of someone banging their head against the wall to adequately capture forum member emotions when describing our interactions with people in our organizations...

lol we 'll see what we can do

[Haz]

Originally Posted by sparky

Excellent first question.

I think it's true that people do consider experiences as data, and it's wrong (IMHO) in the absolute sense.

I see nothing wrong with drawing on experience, learning from the past, but this ought to be backed up with independent and honest data.

Many will argue that what has happened in the past is fact and is therefore relevant and robust data, but is it? Don't we all see things differently, don't we all view from a different perspective?

I think Lakota offers sound advice suggesting checking the "facts" and where they come from. There are plenty of cases where the truth has been obscured by "fact."

Darrell Huff wrote an interesting book called, "How to lie with statistics." Possibly well worth an hour of your time.

This is an eye opening thread for me, I have many times uses the , "in the automotive industry" as a way to gain approaval to "something". I have of late not used it because i felt almost as if i was saying i am better than you.

I have and will always use the "speak with data" approach and to bring these two together is going to lead to a lot of interesting conversations at work.

Brilliant first post.

[Delphi]

Interesting thread and I like how it is developing.

What I find interesting is that on one hand, we have a fair amount of "Experince Talkers" speaking to experience as data while we have "Real Data Talkers" speaking to just data. Not surprising as process improvement, hypothesis testing, business decision making, etc seems to polarize the two as there is a real financial risk involved.

Perhaps there is a balance between the two. Speak with the data yes, but I wouldn't necessarily ignore experience either. Both are valuable but in different ways. For instance, experience tells me that when the stove is turned on, the burner was hot because I once put my hand on it and I can assume that when I put my hand on it again when it is on, it will be hot again. Data will tell me that 99 times out of 100 that when the stove was turned on that it was hot, at what temperature the stove is hot to me, how long it takes the stove to get hot, etc.

As my manager tells me "Experience is personal. Data is universal."

Just more of my random thoughts.

[netneanderthal]

Originally Posted by Delphi

... Perhaps there is a balance between the two. Speak with the data yes, but I wouldn't necessarily ignore experience either...

An interesting point by Delphi which reminds me of something my ex-super boss used to tell me...

"Never ignore your gut feel, but it sure is good to have the data that proves it!"

Needless to say, my ex-super boss had made a pretty good career of using data and then applying his experience to what he saw... An admirable trait to emulate and ensure that the halo effect I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread did not rear it's head...

I never got to quite figure out how he did it as I ended up moving companies before I could spend enough time with him to see how he did that...

But I think every organization needs a few people of his disposition...