Gypsy wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:42 am
Vex wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:33 am
I genuinely wish you'd do
some research before you formulate an opinion on something. Look up Miranda Dawn, and Lord Galamushi. I'm not going to pretend I'm some kind of fount of knowledge on the two of them, but I'm sure you can find someone more than vaguely familiar with those events, and his thrall bounty hunter program.
I was in Hells Angels when this happened. Miranda was using HA for a personal vendetta and took on the pink panties to keep from being zeored. That was the downfall of the clan becuase it was a direct order to never take on neutrality. You can point to that time that closed Hells Angles. We all left and it folded.
I agree, look at the old papers and see exactly what went on.
This is a really great example of anecdotal evidence, the exact thing I'm saying is not a great indicator as to what the most common use of neutrality is.
I don't know how else I can say it, so instead I'll post an article that supposedly takes 9 minutes to read (it took me 25, but I am admittedly a slow reader) and it does a better job of breaking down anecdotal evidence.
https://towardsdatascience.com/how-anec ... 295303d577
Some highlights for me:
"In a nutshell, when you experience a data point yourself, you will associate greater value to it than if it was simply reported to you. Because you experience more emotions from a data point, you naturally (often subconsciously) assign it more importance.
How does this blow up your data insights? Too many times, these anecdotes are descriptions of data points that are no different than data points that provide you with your desired metric and your desired metric alone. The anecdote is a drop in bucket, and it can lure you into making it seem of greater significance than it actually is.
This occurs every day with customer service. The people most likely to call in will be dissatisfied customers, and you can bet they will providing descriptions at length as to how a product or service gave them a horrendous experience. If executives were to listen to these stories and compare them to raw data that showed that their sales were getting stronger, they might be prone to making ill-advised changes because of the emotional weight attached to consumer anecdotes. This is not to say that those dissatisfied customers don’t count as data points, or that there is nothing to be done to improve the product or service. It’s simply stating the fact that each customer should be weighted the same, even if the dissatisfied data point is more emotionally engaging."
"Without a data collection process set in place ahead of time, anecdotal evidence will make you susceptible to the basic human instinct to assign greater value to inputs that move you emotionally. Incorrectly weighted inputs lead to incorrect outputs. This could result in implementing the wrong strategy, costing you resources or worse, customers."
"Anecdotal evidence can be a powerful tool to derive unique insights from your data if used properly. Remember our definition of an anecdote? It’s a data point that provides additional information. If you have a disciplined approach, that information won’t mislead you, it can generate a better understanding of what you’re researching.
If there’s one takeaway, it’s this:
let anecdotal evidence drive your questions, and
data analytics support the answers."
[Note that, my picking out the highlights of the article is an example of anecdotal evidence. You should read the whole article and draw your own conclusions (I know you probably know this, but I wanted to make this clear).]
Or, even the summary on the Wikipedia page is decent, but I would encourage you to look into the topic on your own and find more reliable sources:
"Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method.
Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Similarly, psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples rather than typical examples.[3] Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is typical requires statistical evidence.[4] Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical. Compare with hasty generalization.
The term is sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony which are uncorroborated by objective, independent evidence such as notarized documentation, photographs, audio-visual recordings, etc.
When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are highly regulated[5] or banned in some[which?] jurisdictions."
This topic for me just raised more questions. Note that the "you" I am referring to is a general one, meaning, if you are one of the people who stigmatizes neutrality:
1. If you want to stigmatize neutrality because you've personally had, or know people who personally have had, bad experiences with neutrality, there's obviously nothing anyone can do to stop you from doing so. I just question whether or not the people who are doing so would do the same thing in other aspects of existence?
2. (For the people who choose to launder money or benefit from laundered money) How do you justify being against the abuse of one system, but being for the abuse of another? And if you're for the abuse of any kind of system (and willing to pass judgement on people who abuse a system while you, yourself, are abusing a system), what does that say about you? (admittedly an off topic question, and probably goes back to the "inherently evil creatures who don't give a fuck" argument)
3. If when people were teaching newcomers to the city on the ways of city life, if Neutrality were taught from an unbiased perspective, and as one of many paths (not just the one of the warrior), would there be such a stigma around it, would more people have taken it, and would there be less war?
