Anecdotes

We provide examples when we discuss. It is difficult and boring to talk in general and abstract manner for long time. To make it simple, we use examples. Examples are of crucial importance. Even in established teaching methodology, examples follow theory; I often feel that in process of understanding examples precedes abstraction. Our cognition has many biases or inherent limitation of naivety. One of them is failure to differentiate examples from anecdotes.
In my encounters with people, except those where I was not observer but active participant, what I have really remembered are anecdotes. And I see that I form my cognition of people from those anecdotes. But then they are ‘anecdotes’ is the fact that separates them from being closest approximation of reality. To have such closet approximation, which is aim of much of the social research, one must understand to separate anecdotes from general. My mind confuses me in anecdotes with examples. I consider anecdotes as examples of desired closet approximation and I end up constructing a structure that fails to explain most of the things. It is dull and similar looking general which needs explanation. Anecdotes are simply failure or limitation of explanations. They drive abstraction to misspecification.
How it happens in practice? When I try to evaluate how a government decision had affected group of people, what catches my attention are mostly anecdotes. As a simple onlooker, what I see prominently becomes my initial impression. What I see prominently are people who are able to achieve some distinction. This distinction of them makes them anecdotes. They are useful as tool of falsification but not for positive explanations. What should shape theory is observation of people who are indistinct and constitute larger chunk. This needs time, real excavation and fight with boredom. It is difficult and hence, we are biased toward simple, plausible but wrong theory of anecdotes. Our images are inmost of the case anecdotes. Mumbai is Nariman point or Dharavi, not suburb called ‘Ghatkopar’.
But there are anecdotes or exceptions or outliers or deviations in most of the aces. They are not limiting cases but distinct from theoretical explanations. Should we seek for theory that can incorporate them? Yes! We should. However, that does not make existing theory useless. These exceptions do not undermine existing limited explanations. It is fallacy of one who studies if such undermining happens. There is no complete and consistent explanation of anything. Explanations are approximations. Even our language is an excellent but limited approximation of exchangeable individual ideas or feelings. We often understand these limits. Then why Science can have such a limit? After all, it is creation of human being which itself is incomplete and inconsistent.
Statistics, however criticized for not providing an answer but a confidence interval around any answer, reminds us of these limitations. If we proclaim truth, they have edges of contradictions.
Perfection of explanation is pleasant dream. It doesn’t let me sleep and I cannot live it.