[fun]The anecdotal evidence assumptions thread

[Misanthrope]

So if you've seen some of my points you might have seen me dismiss many points made as "anecdotal" which usually means it's meaningless observations that are not based on any studies or any other type of empirical observation to actually be anywhere near reproducible and verifiable data. Yet as human beings we do this all of the time and sometimes is fun to just build up theories upon these speculations and such so instead of erroneously using these observations in an environment that matter why no go tin foil hat here and have some fun?

 

I'll start with one to also serve as an observation:

 

Middle class and rich people are generally taller: Now I am what you would consider well above average height myself (1.90 meters or 6'3" for you imperial loving people) yet I am almost 20 centimeters above the national average here in Mexico for males. I did notice however that when I am on more populous areas of the city or even kind of dangerous, low income neighborhoods and such I am way, way above the average and it is pretty usual for me to basically be the tallest person in the room/store/bus/whatever.

 

I also usually had other jobs with pretty much middle class people in terms of affluence and I noticed that while the previous statement was still true, there was a lot more people that were just 10 to 15 centimeters shorter than me and that was definitively more common.

 

Lastly on my current office job, you could again consider most of the people working there to be generally well off, definitely upper middle class and above that. This time around however I am as tall as several people and 1 or 2 around the office are actually a tiny bit taller than me. But the average seems to be actually somewhat close to my height with short people being way below average this time around. (This disturbing height privilege doesn't seems to be working too much at the time of writing though)

 

My flawed conclusion is that being tall here in my city is probably highly sought after by women making the average directly related to other characteristics they seek out like security and such, leaving the shorter guys shorter on the wallet too it seems.

 

Again this is just BS I am writing for fun so don't take it seriously.

[Unhelpful]

A Seagate / WD Drive died for me. They're shit and have higher failure rates!

[Misanthrope]

Not really I just made like 3 comments I don't even know what's going on there.

[MrDynamicMan]

I can see this thread becoming awesome. 

[Blevins]

It might have to do with economic background of their families as well, it's more common for a child of a middle class household to be middle class later in life. Poorer families are less able to feed their children well, the poor nutrition being a factor in their shorter stature. While middle and upper class families are better able to provide proper nutrition, so they grow taller. 

This can also be seen in places like Africa, where the average height is significantly shorter than the average in wealthier parts of the world(IE First world countries).

 

I don't have any studies or evidence for this, but that seems like a logical conclusion to me. 

[Volbet]

People that do body modifications or stand out in general (piercings, tattoos, dyed hair, stretchers, etc.) tend to either be the most intelligent and intersting people I meet or they are the dumbest people I meet. I haven't meet anyone that falls in between the two extremes. 

 

I don't know why it is that way, and I can't seem to find an answer as to why I make this observation. 

But the people I meet with any of those characteristics tend to be either introspective, creative types that can form cohesive opinions on the world around then or they are neo-nazis, who, coincidentally, is also the last person I would consider as a representative of the superior aryan race. 

[Misanthrope]

I'll take a more controversial and out there one now:

 

All professional sports are basically Wrestling, but much better at kayfabe. Now I know many of you probably follow at least a couple of professional sports and will not be happy about the fact that I am basically calling all professional sporting events "fixed" but I have a good reason to think so: Whenever it works or not it creates a great narrative for you to follow.

 

Most sports are usually verified by referees and have at least some ambiguous rules somewhere. This is by design since the outcome of a match can easily be swayed towards a certain team with only a few key "controversial" referee calls. 

 

I now many of you are already typing examples of why this isn't true but let me tell you why I think it's more clever than you think: if you fix a game, and you fail it kinda still works. You're basically creating an underdog, a team that defeats odds against it and emerge as the truly glorious heroes. This basically keeps everybody guessing, everybody discussing the game, everybody engaged in it and thus generating interest and money.

 

The reason it is also feasible is because very few people actually need to be on the know about the fix if you're ok whenever it works or not. It has better plausible deniability that way anyway.