Which informs you more in life, anecdotes or data

[amorphous_constellation]

So as your life heads into future, you navigate based on information. Most people's minds probably don't trap raw data in precise form, when it informs them, but likely must transfer it into integrated impulses which condition their future reactions. Likewise with anecdotes. But the failure of the human mind to precisely capture data, is likely why anecdotes are found to be useful. Looking back at your life then, how much of what you learned was likely the result of encountering anecdotal information as opposed to data? And assuming that the majority of what you learned was from anecdotes, and that this is due to the limitation of general human physiology, then is data a subject of scrutiny? For if you could not succeed in imbibing raw data, but must learn through anecdotal information, which is often a close cousin to real experience, then data is not very potent as an informing force

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

many experiences in life are not subject to objective data collection or analysis.

 

[MNoBody]

most of what anyone knows is made of second or hundredth hand data, not direct, raw information/experience
and one must take their word for it being 'just that way', our 'take-away'.
regardless of what it was I had heard or read, until I had some experience of it, it was merely a model constructed in the mind.

 

[sun rise]

Looking back at your life then, how much of what you learned was likely the result of encountering anecdotal information as opposed to data?

Good question. For me it depends on the situation. When it comes to things amenable to science such as COVID-19, I ignore anecdotes as being unreliable and stick to evidence.

But there are realms where science does not exist to produce data, I rely on anecdotes. But even here, I want to avoid credulity; swallowing stories unexamined.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human quotes that they learn by DATA, then it involves new science references to forced change. Forced change is to apply unnatural forces to natural laws, as natural laws are not DATA. Science converting artificially is a DATA gain.

As a quote how many numbered conditions involved in removal does a number as DATA own to verify information by the quota of its destruction. Being modern day thesis study. How far can destruction conversion of natural mass allow energy to exist to be consumed.

If you were not consuming the energy then what substance is left over as data would not be considered as relevant. For it is not origin itself, but it becomes origin to forced DATA advice being fake information. Data hence is falsification of natural information.

anecdotes (plural noun)

1. a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

Life is short lived, if you are lucky 100 years per person. If you are unlucky less than that condition.

Compare a holy number 100 to what DATA states.....would bring your attention to an idea, how much DATA numbering destructive ideals owns conditions to extract a natural life supported by MASS which is also a huge numbering factor before it no longer can even survive?

If that is the condition of what you quantify is amusing, then be amused. Science in Satanism was amused before, but when it comes to your own life loss...then you are not amused about an anecdote of equal life mockery. What you were warned about before. To mock an equal living condition.

 

[Howard Is]

Forced change is to apply unnatural forces to natural laws, as natural laws are not DATA.

What are natural laws, and how do you gain knowledge of them ?

 

[rational experiences]

What are natural laws, and how do you gain knowledge of them ?

You think as the self informed applied natural self thinker, who first says to self I am natural.

I can think.

My thinking forces me to use image and vision. I live inside of a heavenly body. One side is burning constantly...so it is not 12 hours as taught. One side is cold and clear in space constantly.

The law of the constant presence, natural and also observed, real natural law.

Then I can ask my own self questions. Why is only one side of the heavenly gases burning? To give self the answer, some other body had to have affected our heavens. So law in the past is natural, but involves an ability to change unnaturally.

For when I think about a law, I claim what its original form was before it was changed from its highest human aware observation and assessment.

So I quote that the Sun was an unnatural law, an attack. Laws as natural in the cosmos therefore support attack. Natural laws.

 

[Heyo]

So as your life heads into future, you navigate based on information. Most people's minds probably don't trap raw data in precise form, when it informs them, but likely must transfer it into integrated impulses which condition their future reactions. Likewise with anecdotes. But the failure of the human mind to precisely capture data, is likely why anecdotes are found to be useful. Looking back at your life then, how much of what you learned was likely the result of encountering anecdotal information as opposed to data? And assuming that the majority of what you learned was from anecdotes, and that this is due to the limitation of general human physiology, then is data a subject of scrutiny? For if you could not succeed in imbibing raw data, but must learn through anecdotal information, which is often a close cousin to real experience, then data is not very potent as an informing force

There is a wide spectrum between "raw data" and "anecdote". Except from scientists working in the field few people ever see raw data. Most of us see only prepared or condensed data.
Anecdotes range from "random person on the internet" to "trusted news agency".
The problem is that humans are social animals. We evolved to trust our tribe, sometimes more than our senses. (Asch conformity experiments - Wikipedia). Some people are sometimes able to overcome that tribalism. I strive to.

 

[MNoBody]

 

[rational experiences]

When a human who is a theist, just a natural human like everyone else, tries to convince everyone that his human being male expressed sciences speaks for all conditions before his own life as DATA then he lied.

If you asked his science history, male and human how many times he expressed his science as a human thesis with machine that changed natural that attacked us, as natural did...he would quote 3 times before.

If a male who uses natural memory and atmospheric aware recorded voice and image feed back encoded as a machine designed condition by his own self....then he did and it informed him of what he did before, science.

What he never did before was design creation, own creation in a theme of nothing but space and then activate creation. Which is in fact one of his own scientific male group coercion, the tribe of scientists. A tribe itself, by conditions of the expressive reasoning.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

There is a wide spectrum between "raw data" and "anecdote". Except from scientists working in the field few people ever see raw data. Most of us see only prepared or condensed data.
Anecdotes range from "random person on the internet" to "trusted news agency".
The problem is that humans are social animals. We evolved to trust our tribe, sometimes more than our senses. (Asch conformity experiments - Wikipedia). Some people are sometimes able to overcome that tribalism. I strive to.

I'll have to remember that one, because it looks like more evidence for our psycho-physiological limits

Interesting, or cogent of you to plug all this into tribalism. Certainly a term that will come to the fore to explain the dilemmas of our times, however, do we not do a disservice to ourselves in denying our physiological inclinations? Go against them too much, and you make life harder than would it naturally be. Accept them too much, and you deny the metaphysical spirit that flows through us all. I am reminded of the religious philosophy of the Druids. They accepted cultural plurality, clearly, but produced an objective metaphysical layer above disparate cultures. In this way, they controlled the spirituality of many sub-cultures, below what I discern to be a monolithic cultural layer of spirituality, which they all wore as their cultural capstone.

 

[MNoBody]

I'll have to remember that one, because it looks like more evidence for our psycho-physiological limits

Interesting, or cogent of you to plug all this into tribalism. Certainly a term that will come to the fore to explain the dilemmas of our times, however, do we not do a disservice to ourselves in denying our physiological inclinations? Go against them too much, and you make life harder than would it naturally be. Accept them too much, and you deny the metaphysical spirit that flows through us all. I am reminded of the religious philosophy of the Druids. They accepted cultural plurality, clearly, but produced an objective metaphysical layer above disparate cultures. In this way, they controlled the spirituality of many sub-cultures, below what I discern to be a monolithic cultural layer of spirituality, which they all wore as their cultural capstone.

tribalism all centred around the totems of that tribe
Totemism must also be considered as a main pillar supporting this behavior.

 

[Vinayaka]

So as your life heads into future, you navigate based on information. Most people's minds probably don't trap raw data in precise form, when it informs them, but likely must transfer it into integrated impulses which condition their future reactions. Likewise with anecdotes. But the failure of the human mind to precisely capture data, is likely why anecdotes are found to be useful. Looking back at your life then, how much of what you learned was likely the result of encountering anecdotal information as opposed to data? And assuming that the majority of what you learned was from anecdotes, and that this is due to the limitation of general human physiology, then is data a subject of scrutiny? For if you could not succeed in imbibing raw data, but must learn through anecdotal information, which is often a close cousin to real experience, then data is not very potent as an informing force

There are other factors, like personal observation, or personal insight. Are they anecdotal, or data, or neither?

 

[Heyo]

There are other factors, like personal observation, or personal insight. Are they anecdotal, or data, or neither?

Personal observation is the most anecdotal, biased and subjective. Don't believe your lying eyes before you haven't published the data and got it peer reviewed.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

personal observation, or personal insight.

People who are into data would probably consider those to be very anecdotal

 

[amorphous_constellation]

tribalism all centred around the totems of that tribe
Totemism must also be considered as a main pillar supporting this behavior.

Not entirely with the ancient Celts, who followed rules made by the same druids regardless of their tribe, or so that's how I understand what history says about them

 

[Vinayaka]

People who are into data would probably consider those to be very anecdotal

Are they still anecdotes if you never tell anyone?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Are they still anecdotes if you never tell anyone?

Well they still would inform you

 

[Vinayaka]

Well they still would inform you

No doubt.