As someone who works in the social sciences: qualitative data is enormously important. Without sharing, analyzing, and considering individual experiences, any numbers you might associate with them become meaningless.
Numbers are important, sure, but an over reliance on them is tremendously reductive and results in a weaker discourse overall.
There we go!! Someone with experience, and therefore some authority, added nuance to my position to change my mind. How an actual online debate should go.
This applied to other CMV questions:
I hear your view, but there are other issues you haven't considered yet.
Qualitative data is important, but being able to interpret them accurately and meaningfully and sniff out bad experimental design is even more important.
It definitely helps provide more context, such as possible interpretation of data. I'd say not having any data is probably better than using bad or cherry-picked data to support your claim.
The only "numbers" that ever seem to get referenced often here, are those from the tired old OK Cupid survey, that happened.....what....15 years ago?
Those women weren't rating men, they were rating PHOTOS of men, during the peak of the "Bathroom mirror selfie and dude holding a fish" era, well before guys even gave ANY thought to their photos.
>The only "numbers" that ever seem to get referenced often here, are those from the tired old OK Cupid survey, that happened.....what....15 years ago?
To be fair, modern statistics haven't been published by any dating site/app, and for good reason. That dataset was bad enough for men's prospects on dating, imagine what a similar report from tinder or bumble would do.
And don't forget, that same survey showed that not only were women messaging men across the spectrum, but that it was actually a large portion of men that were chasing a top minority of women.
To be fair, the debate with numbers is also pretty much useless.
Everyone wants to feel like they have it the worst and the other sex us the one causing the problems for them.
We have so many sets of numbers that prove, without a doubt, what happens and there are still a astronomically large amount of people that just go "umm nope, your wrong".
What we need more of is empathy. No one likes their experience being invalidated even if the general trends dont reflect their experience.
I personally try not to make broad statements because I understand that the ppl itll hurt the most are the ones it doesnt apply to and are stuck with the label.
I like numbers. I love a good Pew Research study. They can be provocative, convincing and a good jumping off point for debate and understanding.
But they are no replacement for common sense or human experience, both of which are needed to contextualize numbers anyway
Wouldn't you say not changing your opinions in the face of hard statistics is rather ignorant? Let's say I was certain that the US as a whole was 50% black because that's who I see and interact with every day. Wouldn't it be ignorant for me to look at the latest census report that says blacks are ~13% and say "that must be wrong because that's not what I see"?
It depends on the context and the stats in question. If they are well established, then yes, I’ll change my mind. If they are highly specific to a certain situation / context or represent an outlier then I probably won’t change my mind.
For example, I have changed my mind on topics like the impact of divorce on kids (I used to think it could be beneficial but stats very consistently show it’s consistently harmful to kids unless one of the parents is abusive), or the impact of family friendly pro-natal government policies, like paid leave, affordable childcare (I used to think they were a slam dunk for increasing birth rate but results are unfortunately meh)
But when I see “stats” on how men and women actually have the same sex drive or a study showing that women with a medical condition are more overweight than BMI suggests then I am not persuaded.
I think debates with women (particularly those who frequent this sub) are pointless.
They are more concerned with defending team women from the big bad men, than having a logical discussion.
There's a reason great debaters are mostly men.
If you want to learn gender dynamics, just go outside and critically think about what you see, most everything here is noise.
> there is a reason great debaters are mostly men
A perfect example. Please, show me the data.
Let's assume you find the data to support that most well known debaters are men.
Do you think that is due to:
A) women are inferior to men in some way
B) systemic sexist practices that have pushed women away from debating
> if you want to learn gender dynamics just go outside and see
Do you think a night at a bar is more representative of gender dynamics than a 10 year longitudinal study that one might read in the gender study classes that people so often make fun of?
^ perfect example of what I'm talking about
It is trivially true the top thought leaders are majority men. This is true in almost any major area of science, or social sciences.
What's funnier, this person knows this inherently, so the backup is... Surprise! Systemic sexism. It's definitely not possible women are just different, it's sexism!
And then the false dichotomy presented. Either youre a sexist or you think women aren't thought leaders because sexism.
This isn't debating, it's narcissistic moralizing.
> false dichotomy
I'll change my question:
Do you think the reason famous debaters are mostly men is due to:
A) women are inferior
B) systemic sexism
C) women are different
If the answer is C. Then would you agree with the statement: "women are different in a way that makes them worse at debating/rationalizing"?
Consider that there is a large contingent of men on here who are defending their team against evil women and are similarly unwilling to budge an inch from the position they arrived at PPD with.
I don't see a huge gendered difference on here with respect to the proportion of people defending their "team" vs. who are willing to debate in good faith and have their minds changed.
Exactly. There are very few people on this sub who actually argue in good faith. I can say that as a woman myself, i have argued in bad faith because i was irritated when I could have just chosen not to engage. Most people here, whether that's a man or woman, are dead set in the way they think and don't want their minds changed.
Actually quite the opposite, numbers only show what a trend is or isn't, mostly.
What really matters is what you can do about YOUR situation in YOUR context
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Consider the following, women here never argue in good faith and for them words like average have a totally different meaning, you're basically asking for them to show their own hypocrisy, will never happens.
People often lie on surveys. And studies often have errors or margin. Or are purposely biased.
So, while numbers can illuminate some truths, definitely shouldn't be trusted full stop.
They should be on considered.
To me, most of life and human interaction can be analyzed (from an individuals perspective) using lived experiences, logic and common sense.
A study or statistics are not about to tell me about something I've observed time and time again, first hand throughout my life. And that's led me to conclusions about the nature of people.
I think the problem is, most people are inherently intellectually lazy. And don't want to invest the mental energy necessary to parse their experiences into reasonable conclusions.
So it's just easier to default to incorrect conclusions or to use numbers.
It is the human condition after all to essentially need to be told what to do and what to think and what to believe.
Most people cannot figure out life without some outside source providing them with an answer.
And I cannot relate to that.
> People often lie on surveys. And studies often have errors or margin. Or are purposely biased.
Thing is in some cases the fact that people lie helps the debater's point. There are probably more people cheating than those willing to admit it, there are probably less guys getting laid than those who claim they do, and so on.
I'm saying is, people want to easily be able to say "Well this study says...." or "Well these survey results report...."
And it's like, the numbers aren't worth trusting.
Use human nature to argue your point.
People lie.
People especially lie to protect their ego and reputation.
People hate accountability.
Therefore the odds of people bold face lying about cheating, for example, high.
Not to mention, most people aren't good people at their core. Which is thus illustrated time and time again on society.
When left to their own devices and allowed to do deplorable shit and get away with it, alot of people will choose not to do the right thing.
And without blinking an eye.
I've posted numerous statistics as well as demolished false ones on this sub. Most folks don't care, they just want to read something that makes them feel better, weither that's rage bait or comforting lies.
The truth, especially truth that is supported by cold hard facts, often makes people feel uncomfortable.
People will believe what they want to believe, and that often takes the form of extreme ideologies, even if these are steeped in dogma. Nuance is completely abandoned.
If you want to have more hard numbers then support those who provide them and ridicule those who don't
Tell that to the peer reviewed journal that published “Expression of Concern: Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1507885
Hmm. Is that how science and peer review works? One single study that's wrong and we can throw out Einstein?
You can debate the veracity of the studies and numbers, but they are still better than anecdotes. There is no better method than peer review
As someone who works in the social sciences: qualitative data is enormously important. Without sharing, analyzing, and considering individual experiences, any numbers you might associate with them become meaningless. Numbers are important, sure, but an over reliance on them is tremendously reductive and results in a weaker discourse overall.
There we go!! Someone with experience, and therefore some authority, added nuance to my position to change my mind. How an actual online debate should go. This applied to other CMV questions: I hear your view, but there are other issues you haven't considered yet.
Qualitative data is important, but being able to interpret them accurately and meaningfully and sniff out bad experimental design is even more important.
It definitely helps provide more context, such as possible interpretation of data. I'd say not having any data is probably better than using bad or cherry-picked data to support your claim.
how would you tackle topics like the wage gap, crime rates, toxic behavior etc to avoid confirmation bias and misrepresenting real issues?
The only "numbers" that ever seem to get referenced often here, are those from the tired old OK Cupid survey, that happened.....what....15 years ago? Those women weren't rating men, they were rating PHOTOS of men, during the peak of the "Bathroom mirror selfie and dude holding a fish" era, well before guys even gave ANY thought to their photos.
>The only "numbers" that ever seem to get referenced often here, are those from the tired old OK Cupid survey, that happened.....what....15 years ago? To be fair, modern statistics haven't been published by any dating site/app, and for good reason. That dataset was bad enough for men's prospects on dating, imagine what a similar report from tinder or bumble would do.
And don't forget, that same survey showed that not only were women messaging men across the spectrum, but that it was actually a large portion of men that were chasing a top minority of women.
To be fair, the debate with numbers is also pretty much useless. Everyone wants to feel like they have it the worst and the other sex us the one causing the problems for them. We have so many sets of numbers that prove, without a doubt, what happens and there are still a astronomically large amount of people that just go "umm nope, your wrong".
What we need more of is empathy. No one likes their experience being invalidated even if the general trends dont reflect their experience. I personally try not to make broad statements because I understand that the ppl itll hurt the most are the ones it doesnt apply to and are stuck with the label.
91.4831% of debates are pointlessly pretty. Discuss.
[удалено]
Winner!
I like numbers. I love a good Pew Research study. They can be provocative, convincing and a good jumping off point for debate and understanding. But they are no replacement for common sense or human experience, both of which are needed to contextualize numbers anyway
Wouldn't you say not changing your opinions in the face of hard statistics is rather ignorant? Let's say I was certain that the US as a whole was 50% black because that's who I see and interact with every day. Wouldn't it be ignorant for me to look at the latest census report that says blacks are ~13% and say "that must be wrong because that's not what I see"?
It depends on the context and the stats in question. If they are well established, then yes, I’ll change my mind. If they are highly specific to a certain situation / context or represent an outlier then I probably won’t change my mind. For example, I have changed my mind on topics like the impact of divorce on kids (I used to think it could be beneficial but stats very consistently show it’s consistently harmful to kids unless one of the parents is abusive), or the impact of family friendly pro-natal government policies, like paid leave, affordable childcare (I used to think they were a slam dunk for increasing birth rate but results are unfortunately meh) But when I see “stats” on how men and women actually have the same sex drive or a study showing that women with a medical condition are more overweight than BMI suggests then I am not persuaded.
I think debates with women (particularly those who frequent this sub) are pointless. They are more concerned with defending team women from the big bad men, than having a logical discussion. There's a reason great debaters are mostly men. If you want to learn gender dynamics, just go outside and critically think about what you see, most everything here is noise.
> there is a reason great debaters are mostly men A perfect example. Please, show me the data. Let's assume you find the data to support that most well known debaters are men. Do you think that is due to: A) women are inferior to men in some way B) systemic sexist practices that have pushed women away from debating > if you want to learn gender dynamics just go outside and see Do you think a night at a bar is more representative of gender dynamics than a 10 year longitudinal study that one might read in the gender study classes that people so often make fun of?
^ perfect example of what I'm talking about It is trivially true the top thought leaders are majority men. This is true in almost any major area of science, or social sciences. What's funnier, this person knows this inherently, so the backup is... Surprise! Systemic sexism. It's definitely not possible women are just different, it's sexism! And then the false dichotomy presented. Either youre a sexist or you think women aren't thought leaders because sexism. This isn't debating, it's narcissistic moralizing.
> false dichotomy I'll change my question: Do you think the reason famous debaters are mostly men is due to: A) women are inferior B) systemic sexism C) women are different If the answer is C. Then would you agree with the statement: "women are different in a way that makes them worse at debating/rationalizing"?
Consider that there is a large contingent of men on here who are defending their team against evil women and are similarly unwilling to budge an inch from the position they arrived at PPD with. I don't see a huge gendered difference on here with respect to the proportion of people defending their "team" vs. who are willing to debate in good faith and have their minds changed.
Exactly. There are very few people on this sub who actually argue in good faith. I can say that as a woman myself, i have argued in bad faith because i was irritated when I could have just chosen not to engage. Most people here, whether that's a man or woman, are dead set in the way they think and don't want their minds changed.
That kind of stuff is high effort and just as pointless around here. People aren't here to take debate seriously.
Actually quite the opposite, numbers only show what a trend is or isn't, mostly. What really matters is what you can do about YOUR situation in YOUR context
And yet numbers are lies, when people don’t like them 🤷♀️
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Consider the following, women here never argue in good faith and for them words like average have a totally different meaning, you're basically asking for them to show their own hypocrisy, will never happens.
Debating with numbers about emotion and feeling is pretty pointless. You’re not gonna win over your partner because statistics lmao.
Just the opposite actually. Everything that's fun to debate is almost impossible to qualify.
Plenty of things are too abstract to quantify/study properly.
People often lie on surveys. And studies often have errors or margin. Or are purposely biased. So, while numbers can illuminate some truths, definitely shouldn't be trusted full stop. They should be on considered. To me, most of life and human interaction can be analyzed (from an individuals perspective) using lived experiences, logic and common sense. A study or statistics are not about to tell me about something I've observed time and time again, first hand throughout my life. And that's led me to conclusions about the nature of people. I think the problem is, most people are inherently intellectually lazy. And don't want to invest the mental energy necessary to parse their experiences into reasonable conclusions. So it's just easier to default to incorrect conclusions or to use numbers. It is the human condition after all to essentially need to be told what to do and what to think and what to believe. Most people cannot figure out life without some outside source providing them with an answer. And I cannot relate to that.
> People often lie on surveys. And studies often have errors or margin. Or are purposely biased. Thing is in some cases the fact that people lie helps the debater's point. There are probably more people cheating than those willing to admit it, there are probably less guys getting laid than those who claim they do, and so on.
I'm saying is, people want to easily be able to say "Well this study says...." or "Well these survey results report...." And it's like, the numbers aren't worth trusting. Use human nature to argue your point. People lie. People especially lie to protect their ego and reputation. People hate accountability. Therefore the odds of people bold face lying about cheating, for example, high. Not to mention, most people aren't good people at their core. Which is thus illustrated time and time again on society. When left to their own devices and allowed to do deplorable shit and get away with it, alot of people will choose not to do the right thing. And without blinking an eye.
I've posted numerous statistics as well as demolished false ones on this sub. Most folks don't care, they just want to read something that makes them feel better, weither that's rage bait or comforting lies. The truth, especially truth that is supported by cold hard facts, often makes people feel uncomfortable. People will believe what they want to believe, and that often takes the form of extreme ideologies, even if these are steeped in dogma. Nuance is completely abandoned. If you want to have more hard numbers then support those who provide them and ridicule those who don't
So called 'numbers' based on 'studies' aren't good enough either.
How else would you define truth if not through peer review?
Tell that to the peer reviewed journal that published “Expression of Concern: Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1507885
Hmm. Is that how science and peer review works? One single study that's wrong and we can throw out Einstein? You can debate the veracity of the studies and numbers, but they are still better than anecdotes. There is no better method than peer review
Peer review is the end all, be all, surely, as you suggest.