Friday, March 02, 2018

Anecdotal Evidence

From time to time someone will bring up their life experience in an argument and get shot down for it being anecdotal evidence.  I don't like this.


First, the actual definition of anecdotal is "(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research: "  if you look at the definitions it uses accounts. That is plural, therefore a necessity of more than one account is needed for something to be anecdotal. 


Second and more importantly, when you call a person's experience anecdotal you are diminishing and belittling that person.  By calling their experience anecdotal you are saying that their personal experiences are not worthy of discussion.  It is actually very condescending. 


Third, a lot of research is made up of personal accounts or asking questions of people.  There is no way to know if they are being honest or have an agenda other than just asking a large number of people and getting the average.  For this to be a correct assessment the group needs to be as diverse as possible.  Some research (a majority actually uses statistics, so lets say social research) is basically just anecdotal research. 


I am not saying that personal memory should replace scientific record.   What I am saying is when someone says something that we disagree with based on their personal experiences we tend to say that it is anecdotal and disregard it, but if someone where to say something that we do agree with that is based on their experiences we will use that to support our beliefs and  our hypotheses.  We allow a double standard to occur.


The take away to this is to not discount the experiences of others.  Listen to what they say.  There are three truths, there is my truth, your truth, and the actual truth, but if we actually listen to others and their "anecdotal evidence," we can start to understand them and their belief systems we can see the factors that shade their truth and maybe reveal some that shade our own.  This inspection is the only way to come to real truth. 


But, hey this whole post is anecdotal.



Monday, November 16, 2015

The Economic Imposition of Immigration

A lot of people wonder why European Countries and the USA are allowing huge amounts of immigration.  With recent terror attacks this question is on the minds of a lot of people.   The answer is simple; it is economics.  First lets look at natural population growth. 


A loot at fertility rates per country show that most European countries are under 2 and the United States is just above 2.  2 is the rate needed for replacement.  This isn't even the actual birth rate which tends to run lower.  So Europe and the United States have a naturally reducing population due to birth rates.  So does Japan, but I will come back to them later. 


Now look at the way we judge economics in these countries.  In order for the economy to be strong it must always be growing.  More growth depends on more people.  A naturally reducing population is the enemy for any nations economy.  A way to offset this is to increase immigration from other countries.  It adds more consumers to the economy and strengthens it.  The immigrants will also likely have a higher birth rate initially, again spurring growth. 


Then there was Japan.  Japan has huge restrictions on immigration.  They also have a 1.4 fertility rate, well below replacement rate of 2.  Their population is in a tailspin.  Guess what the result has been.  If you said economic recession, you can collect your cookie on the way out.  The recession also affects consumer confidence and makes them not want to have kids due to the economic stresses on their family. 


What is the answer?  If we don't allow immigration we are on a certain road to economic recession.  The amount of immigration needed to increase birth rates can drastically change the cultural identity of the country accepting the immigrants. Belgium is dealing with a large group of immigrants that want to institute Sharia Law. 


Countries like South Korea and Japan actually pay parents a stipend to have children in order to increase the population. It is a pittance and doesn't really have much affect. 


The only other situation is to change how we look at economics.  If we base the rate of growth on the number of consumers instead of as a dollar amount that is compared to last years dollar amount, it would show actual growth and not just the number of consumers.  Maybe a country needs more people, they have wide open lands, low unemployment, and no traffic issues.  Maybe they can filter them in and retain the countries identity while not alienating the cultural identity of the person immigrating.  Maybe, but our current immigration policy and the policies of European countries are not there, and need to be reevaluated. 


You cannot allow people into your country blindly just because you need consumers to grind away in your economic system. 

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Ashli explains offsides in soccer

This is part of Ashli's silver award project.  She has created a youtube channel to help others with sports and fitness.  Please view and share her videos!  

Friday, June 19, 2015

Fund Ashli in Club Soccer

Ashli has worked very hard over the past year. She was in a recreational league that didn't have enough girls for them assigned to teams. It was essentially pick up soccer every Saturday, where whoever showed up would split into two teams and they would play 5 on 5, 7 on 7, or however they were able to break it up. Despite this format, she was able to work hard on her own and improve her skill and knowledge of the game.

Ashli has a love for the game and a desire to share that knowledge and pass it forward. In addition to helping her little sister improve, Ashli has been working on a Youtube Channel to help other kids train. Ashli is also a referee for recreation league soccer for our town working with younger girls.

Club Soccer costs about $2,000 not including tournament fees. We are looking for help deferring some of that cost. Our goal is $1,000, 50% of the initial cost. We will currently also be paying school fees for her to play high school soccer in the fall and for her sister to play travel soccer this year.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

You can't make a chocolate shake with vanilla ice cream

I like chocolate ice cream.  It would follow that I also like chocolate shakes.  I am not a huge fan of vanilla though.  I would almost never choose vanilla over another flavor, especially chocolate.  Vanilla is only good if you put other things in it, like oreos, but then again an oreo chocolate ice cream sounds much better. 

When I see chocolate shake on the menu board of a local eatery, I now have to question what ingredients they are using.  You see, lately, I have been getting a vanilla shake with just some chocolate syrup blended in.  Um, no!.  How would the vanilla shake lovers of the world like it if I put vanilla extract into a chocolate shake and called it vanilla.  I am sure that they would feel ripped off.  That is how I feel.  Some of these places advertise hand dipped shakes.  Really, hand dipped and you don't have any chocolate back there. 

As far as I know, chocolate ice cream costs the same amount as vanilla.  Chocolate syrup, however, increases the cost to make a "chocolate shake."  The shakes themselves are the same price though, so the extra price gets passed along to all shake drinkers and we are all paying too much because the store refuses to make real chocolate shakes.  We all lose. 

Stand with me.  Ask your local restaurants if they are serving chocolate shakes or chocolate flavored vanilla shakes.  Let them know how you feel about this.  Let the world know.