I see approximately 0 bits of evidence in support of Mr. Hanson’s theory in his (Mr. Hanson’s) post.
Claim c: On purely level 1, the claim that people don’t seek out announced retirees for advice seems to be based on a single anecdote. Which makes it an n of 0.
Claim d: citing <> “saying”; as Zvi says.
Claim e: begs the question. “People believe what the ingroup believes” is basically the first sentence, with the second being “why?” Sharing an example of the phenomena under investigation proves nothing.
My take was that Zvi was not trying to provide evidence in support of Hanson’s theory, but was instead saying roughly: “Hanson’s theory does explain the observed data, but there are other/simpler hypotheses that also explain the data.”
I see approximately 0 bits of evidence in support of Mr. Hanson’s theory in his (Mr. Hanson’s) post.
Claim c: On purely level 1, the claim that people don’t seek out announced retirees for advice seems to be based on a single anecdote. Which makes it an n of 0.
Claim d: citing <> “saying”; as Zvi says.
Claim e: begs the question. “People believe what the ingroup believes” is basically the first sentence, with the second being “why?” Sharing an example of the phenomena under investigation proves nothing.
My take was that Zvi was not trying to provide evidence in support of Hanson’s theory, but was instead saying roughly: “Hanson’s theory does explain the observed data, but there are other/simpler hypotheses that also explain the data.”
Thanks for the note. I disambiguated my pronoun to make it clear that I was replying to the OB post, and not Zvi’s thought stream.