If you work with people who didn’t find the standard interventions helpful, and they find your assistance helpful, that doesn’t mean your thing works better—it means it works better on a group filtered for finding standard interventions unhelpful.
My group is mixed. Some didn’t find standard interventions helpful, some found them somewhat helpful and then improved more working with me. Its actually more a filter of people who think similarly enough to me to hire me. But I have also worked with random friends of friends recommendations who improved, who I think are far less like the normal cluster that is likely to find me.
Its actually more a filter of people who think similarly enough to me to hire me.
I think this is close, and fortunately it is (roughly speaking) the same kinds people who are likely to read your post and take it on board. Others would be more likely to gloss over it because it isn’t as salient to them.
that doesn’t mean your thing works better—it means it works better on a group filtered for finding standard interventions unhelpful.
False dichotomy, it’s evidence for both. One conclusion might be false and the other true but other arguments are required for you to get to that point.
False dichotomy, it’s evidence for both. One conclusion might be false and the other true but other arguments are required for you to get to that point.
Yes, it is probably evidence for both, depending somewhat on what people’s beliefs are about how those in the subset likely differ from the others in the superset with regards to relative response to interventions.
However, I wouldn’t say Alicorn was presenting a dichotomy. Sure, I would have said “that doesn’t necessarily mean” in the first case and “but it does mean” in the second just for extra specificity but I wouldn’t say that is required.
However, I wouldn’t say Alicorn was presenting a dichotomy. Sure, I would have said “that doesn’t necessarily mean” in the first case and “but it does mean” in the second just for extra specificity but I wouldn’t say that is required.
If you work with people who didn’t find the standard interventions helpful, and they find your assistance helpful, that doesn’t mean your thing works better—it means it works better on a group filtered for finding standard interventions unhelpful.
My group is mixed. Some didn’t find standard interventions helpful, some found them somewhat helpful and then improved more working with me. Its actually more a filter of people who think similarly enough to me to hire me. But I have also worked with random friends of friends recommendations who improved, who I think are far less like the normal cluster that is likely to find me.
I think this is close, and fortunately it is (roughly speaking) the same kinds people who are likely to read your post and take it on board. Others would be more likely to gloss over it because it isn’t as salient to them.
False dichotomy, it’s evidence for both. One conclusion might be false and the other true but other arguments are required for you to get to that point.
Yes, it is probably evidence for both, depending somewhat on what people’s beliefs are about how those in the subset likely differ from the others in the superset with regards to relative response to interventions.
However, I wouldn’t say Alicorn was presenting a dichotomy. Sure, I would have said “that doesn’t necessarily mean” in the first case and “but it does mean” in the second just for extra specificity but I wouldn’t say that is required.
I don’t understand how it isn’t a dichotomy.