These are the kinds of things that N run in their mind without touching a calculator or running a spreadsheet.
Right. I'll be an S. Why do you believe this? Why do you believe N = statistics? Or N = Math? Or any variation on that theme? Is this an impression, or did you look at the type breakdown for mathematics? Did you adjust for university type distributions? IQ?
I don't see many Ns doing a statistical analysis before they say something like "that's what Ns do" or similar.
Demanding an example is also very much an S thing - even when inappropriate. Not all concepts are well illustrated by individual examples. How should I prove the average of a set of numbers with a singular example?
You can easily show how to derive an average with an example to show that the formula (the "theory") is applicable. I asked for an example in which intuition was being applied. If the theory is accurate, you can easily find an example to demonstrate it. It's not like I'm asking for E8 TOE here, or something that is completely impossible to show.
The same reasoning applies to more complex judgements than calculating an average. Who's popular? What's beautiful? Is movie X a crime drama or psychological thriller? Does someone look old?
Every example is why "objective"
needs to be tangible. Every single one of them is not objective, it is subjective to the beholder. Yet you can turn most of them into an objective statement. You seem to say that Ns do that (statistics, etc) and yet also make the most leaps...
Popular as objective = measure something. Fans, surveys, concerts, sales... "Jane Doe is the most popular artist because she sold the most albums".
Saying "I think she is popular" based upon a lot of small pieces of data is subjective.
That doesn't make it false, less accurate or anything else. It is simple more subjective.
Making a judgement on these kind of issues requires us to compare a lot of information. It's time-consuming to scrutinize 100 movies to make a detailed comparison on the features of drama and thriller movies. Even then, the result can be disputed. "What is drama? What is considered exciting? Who has decided on these definitions? I refuse to believe that thrillers exist."
Exactly. We use heuristics in order to process massive amounts of information to come to a
subjective quick conclusion. We cannot gather objective data in real time to make real decisions. We shortcut. The rule of thumb, the short cuts, the fuzzy thinking... that is the subjective interpretation. We
fill in the blanks.
Your view on if it is a drama is
subjective based upon
rules you have set to parse through information. You don't attempt to define drama, then create a checklist to check if it is. You shortcut it based on past experiences.
Just as beauty is relative to what you have seen. Simple example - in our media world, we are blasted with more pictures of tail end beautiful women. Your heuristic scan will therefore
not place the respective beaty, based on average population, in the correct place - because you are not being objective. Your trained perspective is subjective and manipulated by your own view. It does not represent the real population distribution (even of people you have encountered).
S will have to contend to the fact that many well-established concepts exist only for groups of items, which requires some pattern recognition, or intuition. We wouldn't be able to use many common sense, every day concepts without using some N. Have you given a thought about why machine learning is so difficult?
This isn't an argument over what is better or more accurate. It is a comment over what is objective. We cannot be objective because we are human. We use rules of thumb, biases, short cuts... because we cannot contend with the amount of data we receive.