When someone who smokes is confronted with statistics that show the harm of smoking—for example, the increased rate of lung cancer among smokers—they are likely to say something like, "My grandfather smoked four packs a day, from the age of 9 until he died, and he lived to be 101!"
Of course it's not valid or logical to point to one case, when the correlation between smoking and increased risk of cancer depends on looking at a large population—thousands or tens of thousands of people who smoke. That is what the scientists and researchers who study things like that do. It's called epidemiology.
Another example: A man will ask his neighbor, "How do you like your Rodeo BroncBuster [car or SUV]?" Again, he's going to look at one instance rather than taking advantage of statistics on owner satisfaction which are available from several sources: JD Power, Consumer Reports, and so forth.
People seem to prefer the anecdotal and the familiar or close-by. Somehow, the experience of your neighbor, your brother-in-law, etc., carries more weight or impresses you more. Maybe we just trust people we know more than someone's numbers. Statistics are cold, distant, impersonal. You want someone in the flesh, standing right there, to tell you—not in numbers but in language, about his experience.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment