"Data is the plural of anecdote"

I hate e-celebs, but I just don't understand why she's incorrect in saying that. Sure, some data can be mathematically proven, but other valid forms of data (surveys, testimonies, etc.) really are by definition the plural of anecdote. Why is she incorrect?

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/lauren_southern/status/601934068217872385
khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability/sampling-distributions-library/sample-means/v/sampling-distribution-of-the-sample-mean
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because surveys, done properly, mitigate bias and provide an accurate representation of a group. Singular anecdotes do not. Did she really say this? Because it's a pretty retarded thing to say

>Sure, some data can be mathematically proven
What sort of data can be mathematically proven, user?

FPBP

'Data is the plural of anecdote' is actually interesting and quite thoughtful.

Too hard for you? She's saying multiple observation equals valid conclusions.

I thought she was implying the opposite

She's saying that data is just a bunch of anecdotes, i.e. individual experiences. She's not wrong.

If anecdotes didn't add up to anything, stereotypes would not have the predictive power that they tend to under sociological investigation.

Isn't she Jewish? Like she says she isn't, but her grandparents were Jews or something.

...

I don't know, man. All I know is what she meant but too many people want everything dumbed down. There's no eloquence or merit to appealing to the normie common denominator. Sometimes you just say things to say them, and it's obviously meant for a specific group of people reading her shit.

Whatever she's a bitch and she was trying to sound smart.

Ok but why say something that fucking obvious?

This?

You don't get the larger issue. The left clings to science they agree with, and shoot down any dissenting experience claiming "personal anecdote". That's a fallacy. Anecdotes do have validity. We wouldnt even have modern science without personal experiences. Proliferation and understanding of science is a different thing.

Data is the plural of datum.

the social sciences are not hard sciences. you should already know this.

Her face pisses me off. She looks like an arrogant whore.

THE LEFT!

Anecdotes have validity or collections of anecdotes have validity? Because they are not the same thing

Fucking hell.

Self reported data is next to worthless though
People are not good at understanding anything

Stay in your IQ range. It's easier that way. Just let the little shit you don't get go.

Science aims to understand the truth of the universe as best we can. We use sets of data points because it's impractical to measure every atom in the universe. Statistics acts as a guide about the minimum number of data points that will yield a given certainty about observable trends representing reality. One datum has a low likelihood of representing the whole truth of reality.

That said, in journalism, it is important to be able to communicate truth to readers in relatable ways. An anecdote about some person's experience that is representative of reality is a valid way to do that, as long as you have verified that it is representative of a scientifically verified trend.

she is

non-argument

there is a distinction between the two and you're conflating them.

Data is fundamentally different from anecdotes, if done collected right. You can use data to accurately explain things, not anecdotes. It's basically saying a human is a plural of atoms. Maybe true, but that's not how it always works (ex. Plants, stones, water...).

Honestly it's a good point and it's main argument is the idea that you should trust your own experiences over "data".

We all know how data can be fudged, we all know how easily we can be manipulated.

Trust your gut, and you will be never be lead astray

No, this is not an accurate statement.

>We all know how data can be fudged, we all know how easily we can be manipulated
Most people are completely ignorant of how bad the situation actually is.

No, this is not an argument.

That's why data was used, to provide context.

This is above your head.

Expert testimony?

An anecdote is indistinguishable from a datum. If you think otherwise, then you probably think it's OK to "cook" data by discarding outliers. This is not up for debate.

Dude, don't bother with him.

You had it right; he's over his head in terms of understanding the situation.

My advice for him: stop valuing pure intellect. Thought without grace and wisdom is one of the purest forms of evil.

still no argument? Just the same ad hominem?

> caring about piss girl

Anecdotes don't always give data. If you take anecdotes with a bias, your results are meaningless. There are no facts, and therefore no data.

Friendly reminder
twitter.com/lauren_southern/status/601934068217872385

No. That's a misconception that comes from this tweet. But she's not saying her grandparents were Jews, she's giving 2 separate examples of white people being oppressed to make an argument.

Pale Primate dropping massive redpills on baby Lauren

Because to most it isn't.
Data is considered accurate.
Anecdotal evidence is ignored.
By swapping the labels it becomes relevant or irrelevant.

But she said this in the context of Muslim opinion polls. Obviously those polls were conducted by people who understand sampling bias.

Data is subjective, it can be anything.

And anything can be data*

Whoops.

If you think arguing without context is productive, then you might just be a basic bitch.

>Thinking name calling makes you correct

She actually took this phrase from Molyneux. But he said "Data is NOT the plural of anecdotes".

She's a complete retard.

>single annecdote of random shit
>this single county of Detroit has a gigantic nigger problem.
Possibly random or causation without correlation

>counties and precinct all over the country report the exact same anecdotes on nigs nigging
Suddenly this becomes data. How is this hard to understand?

...

Legally

she's incorrect because she's a dumbass attention-seeking fake blonde shitskin infiltrator (sicilian)

Data defined axiomatically.

underrated

>"Data is the plural of anecdote"

No, Data is the plural of Datum.

how can they mitigate bias?

The plural of anecdote means something though, surely?

>one guy says a woman is easy to bed
-might not be the case
>many guys say a woman is easy to bed
-most likely is the case.

I don't see what she means by it. It's a very strange statement to make.

Erm, I think you will find data is the fucking plural of datum, dumb bitch.

Basically she wants people to take her personal anecdotes as facts without having to prove them with statistics or anything

By using a sufficiently large random sample.

>"Data is the plural of anecdote"
Only retards would ever say this.
If you actually believe this, then we have solid data that pretty much everything ever exists. Including logical impossibilities like michael jackson is both dead, alive and a robot.

Well the difference between proper data and a collection of anecdotes is that data is gathered from a representative sample of the population you're trying to describe. I.e. anecdotes are biased

>multiple people ITT are completely able to answer OP's question on why Southern is a dumb bitch

Some of you guys are alright.

not all data is subjective

did you grow up in a barn

dumbass

How the fuck would you ever actually get objective data? Everything you could ever observe is ultimately some kind of concoction of your brains. It's not very clever to define everything as subjective, since that would make the term meaningless, but he is right anyway.

>"data is the plural of anecdote"
Think of it this way; if you say "my friend was killed by a black-trans-muslim", that's anecdotal. But if a hundred people out of a thousand say it, that's data.

a datum is simply an association between two states

this is described in function theory

data is a collection of associations between two states

if the states are objective, then the datum is "objective"

if either of the states are subjective, then the datum may be subjective

y'all are confusing sampling with association - you can sample "something" and retrieve collections of associations

a less vague and non-retarded statement suggesting actual knowledge would be "samplings of data may or may not be the plural of an anecdote"

that stupid bitch probably went to some shitty state college and spent her time guzzling cum

I know Sup Forums doesn't like her, but I would listen to her earnestly, debate the merits of her arguments, have a drink, touch her hair, laugh at CNN, ask her to bed, put my penis inside her vagina, agitate her vaginal walls from a variety of positions at around 90 Hz for about 40 minutes, ejaculate sperm inside her, take the phone call 2 weeks later, buy a pregnancy test, ask for her hand in marriage, get hitched at a courthouse, buy a cheap Midwest home, sell meth to pay the bills, raise 3 children, rent out the house and buy a boat to sail around the world in our twilight years and grow old together till death do us part, if you know what I mean.

omfg

keep on with your counting to potato

"1" is insignificance
thus billion being nothing but a plural of insignificances

female logic anyone?

>sell meth to pay the bills

Where did this sudden degeneracy come from.

(Double) blind studies, good control groups, large sample, statistical tests to measure significance. You know there's an entire science dedicated to this, right?

>a datum is simply an association between two states
I'm pretty sure that's called a "function".
>data is a collection of associations between two states
And that'd be a function space.
>if the states are objective
And the only way you'd get such objective states is if you defined them axiomatically. You can't actually observe anything objective.

Also, you write like a faggot.

Data is the plural of datum

the result of a function may be a datum

the function space is the range in which the datum may exist, if it is ever sampled i.e. processed

>objective states

this is another argument entirely, on whether any knowledge can or can't be objective

>you can't actually observe anything objective(ly)

i just withdrew all the money from your bank account -- is it real? if not, then you have nothing to worry about since it's subjective

your basis of argument is defective

finally, fuck off, finngoloid, with your shit tier mathematical knowledge

yes. there is also a finn defending her every day for a month now posting disinfo. check the archieve its hilarious

Point to a single piece of "disinfo" I've posted.

Assuming all the supposed "logical fallacies" actually nullify an argument is a fallacy.

Anecdotes can be true.

The Slippery Slope argument can in fact say something true.

"Ad Hominem" can be something important to consider.

>Categorizing some forms of argument and then saying those kinds of argument are not real arguments.

>i just withdrew all the money from your bank account -- is it real?
I don't know. Is my bank account real? Am I real? How can you tell?
>finally, fuck off, finngoloid, with your shit tier mathematical knowledge
The philosophical aspects of it might be a bit vague for me, but I'm good enough with the practical stuff. Certainly good enough to be better than you.

Data may consist of multiple anecdotes but this is horribly misleading and stupid. Data that is collected well is meant to accurately mirror the distribution of the population as a whole. To do this good statisticians try to make data collection as random as possible. In addition to this, data that is good must be of sufficient size to draw valid conclusions, i.e. there are formulas that allow you to figure out the number of data points you need in order to drop the possibility that your data just randomly happens to fall in line with an incorrect conclusion below a certain threshold.

They teach all of this shit in fucking high school statistics. This fucking stupid moron is just saying what she is saying so her dumbfuck fans feel comfortable drawing whatever conclusions they want to by looking at their twitter feeds and calling it "data". Go to school for fucks sake.

lol you stupid clown

this is the finngoloid in his local town:

bystander 1: "Call the police and the fire department - the Hospital is on fire."

finngoloid town idiot: "How do you know? Is it real? Am I real? Are you real? Is fire real? What if the Hospital is not on fire? How do you know if something is real."

bystander 2: "Because the top floor is in flam- Shut the fuck up you imbecile, and go change your urine soaked pants."

bystander 1: "Fire department's here. Thank god someone knows what they're doing."

I don't bother talking to you. You're clearly unable to have decent human interactions. Plebbit or Sup Forums might suit you better.

I simply proved you wrong. You can never have objective reality, only subjective. That subjective reality is where we, live so obviously subjective truths are important to us. You wouldn't understand the distinction though, since you're not very gifted. Or at all.

>she says she is not jewish is proof she isn't
lets go again and again until ypur handlers run out of money.
i do start to believe you are mentally deranged

Does she look Jewish? Does she act like a Jew? No? Case closed.

>check the archieve

with pleasure

But there's zero evidence she is Jewish and she even did a DNA test. Do you think she faked the test?

And why are you in every Lauren thread right along with me if you hate her so much? Shilling, eh?

>You're clearly unable to have decent human interactions

Post-modernists should be launched into the objectively cold darkness of space where they can subjectively die a horrible painful death.

...

I'm not a post modernist. I'm just someone with the basic human decency of being able to talk to people without seething with vitriol, hatred and resentment.

>failed
More like she realized a political science degree is pointless when she could just straight up start a career in politics.

Actually, 'anecote(s)' is the plural of 'anecdote'.

>t. professional linguist

She's not saying her grandparents were Jews, sure, but were they Jews?

>surrey girls
Into the fucking trash

see
Sampling is a valid mathematical fact. You can't 100% prove something via sampling, but you can 19 times of of 20 be correct within a 10% margin of error.

Learn something:

khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability/sampling-distributions-library/sample-means/v/sampling-distribution-of-the-sample-mean

No, her DNA test showed zero % Jew ancestry

this

not only are anecdotes NOT data, they are anti-data.

That just proves she's not Ashkenazi-descended. That wasn't my question though, were her grandparents Jews?

>hurr you can't use it to have any real level of confidence but you CAN have confidence levels 19/20 times

that makes absolutely no sense. There's only 1 reality. That's why it annoys me when people try to apply statistics to one-time events like the 2016 election. Obviously you aren't going to be able to do jack shit


Statisticians are literally hacks.

There is an "European Jewish" category in ancestry.com, not just Ashkenazi.
>were her grandparents Jews?
Obviously not.

sounds like something an SJW would say kek