zlacker

THAT is your example?

You don't even need a study to prove you wrong, it should be common sense that being rear ended has a good chance of causing chronic neck injuries, let alone 8 of them. But I got you numbers anyway:

> NP pain is common after involvement in a motor vehicle collision (MVC) with 86% of injured occupants reporting NP pain.6 In Ontario 17.6% of those exposed to an MVC report a personal injury...

> Neck injury resulting from an MVC is associated with a high rate of chronicity. Prognosis studies indicate 50% of injured people continue to experience NP a year after the collision.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6899867/

> Anecdotal stuff / vibes are actually really useful.

You can just say you've already made up your mind despite not having personal experience, your anecdotes being biased, and having no statistically relevant evidence - and nothing will change your mind.

Don't waste people's time pretending to be genuine and poison the intellectual well by trying to normalize "feelings based reality".

> When you are know a doctor and overhear conversations with some ranting doctor friends you learn.

What a joke. If a retail worker serves 300 people in a day and then comes home and complains about some guy who yelled at them, it doesn't mean that there's an epidemic of people yelling. That person is 0.3% of interactions but will make up 100% of the complaints because they stood out

You don't even seen to have the gall of asking the doctors youry eavesdropping on if they concur, because surely that would have been your evidence instead.

>>Tadpol+(OP)
I don't need a study to prove anything about a dude abusing the medical system. You don't just come in for an extension conveniently as things are winding down multiple times because whoops, turns out got rear ended again.

>> Anecdotal stuff / vibes are actually really useful.

> You can just say you've already made up your mind despite not having personal experience, your anecdotes being biased, and having no statistically relevant evidence - and nothing will change your mind.

I absolutely can and do change my mind, lots of times. I'm not an old fart set in his ways. What I'm saying is that there is an overcorrection towards this "intellectual well" way of thinking. It's not that statistics is useless, it's that someone telling you of an issue based on vibes / personal experience, or from a single sample is useful even if editors would desk reject it.

It's as though people behave as the numbers in papers come from God instead of a study done with limitations by people who have agendas and make mistakes. It can be right, I love good papers, and despite what you might have concluded actually I love rigor, mathematics in particular is amazing, but when you also take the approach of rejecting any story or opinion because a stat said so (often ignoring how that stat may have been collected or data analysed), this is where problems happen.

>>Tadpol+(OP)
It’s kinda difficult in an antidotal observation to prove if someone is truly disabled but three of my observations that rubbed me the wrong way was the co-worker who ran regular marathons but was planning to seek disability pay for a physical injury; the co-worker that never seemed to have a hearing issue over the ten yrs I worked w her but instantly claimed to have had damage from earlier; and the co-worker who got back injury disability but surfed at lunchtime. I’m sure there are edge cases that can explain all of these. But I’m feeling better if the person really needs the assistance get it.