General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
I know people are morons and I’m a contrarian so I will almost always assume the least popular thing is better, but less convenient somehow
Holy shit, I am totally guilty of this.
For those who haven't yet read the article, the idea is that people interpret "80% of people prefer Pepsi Max to Coke" as "Pepsi Max is 80% yummier than Coke", when in reality most of that 80% only slightly prefers Pepsi.
Basically a strong difference in proportion of people who prefer one option to another does not necessarily imply a strong difference in the average opinion between the two.
That’s how politics tends to operate too.
Same thing with RottenTomatoes ratings. A fresh rating just means the reviewer thought it wasn't terrible, and the "freshness" rating really doesn't say anything about the actual quality of the movie.
i mean it's also important to note that companies can blatantly lie
And Pepsi def be lying, no one likes that shit.
This is true only if the decisions were made independently. If you allow people to make a decision after they've seen the metrics, this no longer holds.
Here's an example of the first. You go at a farmer's market with a cow and you ask everyone to write on a piece of paper what they think the weight is. If you get the replies and average them, you will find that the mean of all answers will be quite close to the real answer. A mix of non-experts and experts will iron out a good answer somehow.
Now take the average experience of going to a restaurant. One might have just opened recently, has great food and great staff, but only 5 reviews, at an average of 3.8 or something. Another restaurant nearby has been open for 3-4 years, and has 1000 reviews, at maybe 3.9. People will usually follow the one with more reviews because they think it's the safer option due to the information available. However, if you were to hide this and ask them to choose by just looking at the venue and the menu, they would probably choose the first one.
Group dynamics are quite interesting, and the psychology behind this is quite funky sometimes :D
We haven't yet found a case where believing something literally makes it true, contrary to what religion and politics would have you think, so the answer is a resolute "can't say"
Yes and no. Beliefs can definitely shape reality.
If someone believes that they can't do something difficult, they often don't attempt it, so don't acquire the skills they would need, and stay unable to do it. The converse is also true.
Children are heavily influenced by their parents' beliefs about them.
Believing something about different brands of soda doesn't change the chemical composition of them, but in a world where products are judged on their sales rather than their chemical composition, changing the perception of a product can fundamentally change its sales, making it a better product by the only objective measure that's consistently used. This is even more true in the world of fashion, for example very strongly with trainers etc.
Anything where human behaviour changes reality is a place where beliefs change reality.
Our beliefs shape the world strongly and powerfully. They change reality.
Hmm. You just had me thinking if that's true or not. I think money is an interesting thing. Inherently, it has no value, it's not rare, it's not useful. It is only useful because we as a society believe that it now has value. But that's more of a "we all decided that money is now worth something." Like.. a question of definition.
Another is safety. A society that believes they're safe will probably have a lot less tension and infighting than a society that believes they're unsafe.
On the other hand, you might erroneously believe that a bike helmet makes you much safer in traffic, to the point where you may ride more recklessly than otherwise and therefore be less safe than if you hadn't worn a helmet...
"People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know this." - Agent K
feels a bit strange to not include the full quote, which changes the sentiment quite a bit:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
Considering the post is about people, and the "person" in the quote can be assumed to represent the reader of said "statistic", the quote functions as provided.
"Hey I'm people! Ahhhhhhh!.... I'll kill you dead!" - Homer Simpson?
I mean, if a majority of people say something is good, I feel more compelled to see for myself. But I don't always agree with them once I do.
All I can say is, if all your friends jumped off a cliff will you jump off as well?
They must be running from some imminent danger in such a scenario, so perhaps I would.
Maybe.. But no not in this scenario.
good old "if you see an engineer running, you should probably follow them"
Same with bomb disposal units and nuclear scientists.
Who are u kidding I'm the friend who came up with the ides to jump off the bridge and they are just following me.
I can't remember which comedian it was, but he said whenever he hears something like 4 out of 5 doctors recommend a particular medication, he wonders what that 5th doctor knows that the others don't?
The fifth doctor got bribed by a different brand first
4 out of 5 dentists recommend using toothpaste and couldn't possibly give less of a fuck which brand you use, the fifth dentist was on vacation
The fifth Doctor knows who the Portreeve of Castrovalva really is.
Isn't that the tyranny of the majority? The fact that a larger percentage of the population does something, doesn't necessarily mean it's the better thing.
Eg. USA.
Eg. Pretty much every group of people in the history of humanity. We tend to forget that we're just dumb animals with dumb animal instinct sometimes.
When A and B are for sale, then marketing and advertising definitely betray the 90% sometimes. The popular item is not always the best or even the best value
Marketing exists, network effects, first-mover advantage, pre-installed software...
I mean, better is subjective. You can't quantify that.
If 90% of people like something over something else, that is all that it means. For all those people it is better for them. But for 10% it isn't better, let alone much better.
This is more a philosophical question than a science one.
[. . .]the ESPN experts’ average prediction of 1.87 points. As it turns out, the Patriots won by 6 points, which even though it was more than six times greater than the expert’s prediction[. . .]
Math is hard.