That’s not the case. The primary use of data is to justify the decisions you want other people to make. That’s why you can make any data say anything you want just by cutting it and presenting it in a certain way.
Which brings me back to my original (tongue in cheek, for those that don’t know me by now) hypothesis - the only reliable use of data is to explain why a decision you’ve already irreversibly made was wrong.
Hi pigfender,
Ah yes … data interpretation and analysis as propaganda. It is all around us these days as we attempt to ‘separate the wheat from the chaff’.
We are witnessing first hand just how powerful propaganda can be.
Interpreting and analyzing data for propaganda purposes occupies a special category of ‘data analysis’. At the highest altitude, propaganda parading as ‘data analysis’ is sufficiently detached from the earth and reality, with just enough blurring of the data in time and space, for the ‘analysis’ to allow for the merging of powerful preconceived notions with a target message to take hold, and remain, in the psyche.
Such is not data analysis, forecasting, or prediction, but simple lies to advance an agenda, as we are currently witnessing to great effect.
As aware I may be of that power, I may also be unwittingly susceptible to it’s influence.
That’s not the argument you want to make… The killer comeback from your side is that by definition ALL data is historical so of course it’s only useful after some decisions have been made), and that it’s not that data analysis failed to prevent the Challenger disaster, it’s that data analysis made sure there was only one.
At this point you drop in that pigfender is both brilliant and hilarious, and while you’ve never seen him he’s probably also incredibly attractive (although no doubt more data in this area would significantly improve the accuracy of your conclusion).
Unfortunately, the crew of the Columbia would like a word. While the mechanical cause was different, the contributing cultural factors were not.
Which I guess is a case of how those who refuse to learn from historical data are doomed to create more data of their own.
Or… those that take too much comfort from data will make different mistakes in the same way.
Data is measured and stored facts. Without it, you can’t piece together information, theories, or wisdom. Without it, all you have is opinion, dogma, and rumor.
All that could have been a five minute Zoom. Section types are the first thing I’d check.
You offered, they didn’t accept, and others were able to help them solve the problem. No need to beat them about the head for not doing it your way. This way the tribal knowledge is here in the forum for others to read, if they are so inclined.
All this has been covered in far more organized fashion in my Notion workflows and other sources, and I don’t think I’m capable of beating anyone about the head and shoulders in this medium.
Sure, but your workflows, however excellent, are not part of Literature & Latte’s formal support corpus. This forum is.
I’m not sure I give a rat’s whether DMB’s workflows are part of the official. They work, are easier for many to follow.
That said, on Scrivener Facebook groups I tell people to come here for support recovering lost work than following some of the well-meaning but dangerous suggestions made there.
One of the wonderful aspects to the forums is that we have such a plethora of different people here. No one person is responsible for helping everyone – so if they don’t take help in a fashion compatible with the way one offers it, someone else will come along.
I offer two alternatives to the forum’s text message methodology: a variety of canned workflows and one-on-one assistance via Zoom (or equivalent). Either way I like to walk people through an end-to-end solution, not a listing of features or piecemeal attempts (as in the forum) to put out fires.
I see users on a daily basis who say they’re giving up on Scrivener because it’s too hard to slog through it.
But it’s only hard if the attempt lacks both structure and personal assistance.
It’s all well and good to say my way is not the only way … but it certainly is a way.
Nobody has never said your way isn’t a way. For a lot of users, it’s really going to help. But in turn you’re not going to help everyone, no matter the merits of your canned workflows or the ease of helping troubleshoot when both parties can actually see the screen, and there is a value in learning when to bow out of a conversation and let others handle it.
That certainly applies in both directions.
But you are correct, no one solution works for everyone.
What’s the value in not pointing out (briefly) that five minutes in a Zoom would replace 3 days of back and forth? It wasn’t rude, just a word to the wise.
The value comes in showing the OP that you respect their choice of not accepting your offer and aren’t going to come back with a post that is nothing more than “I told you so.”
All getting boring now.
It’s not just “I told you so.” It’s “I could have told you three days ago.”
I’m mystified by the notion of users who don’t mind chasing random threads ad infinitum with no thought for the time it takes. It doesn’t describe anyone I know.
Reminds me of my early days of software writing when “programmers” would just start coding without a well thought out plan, leading to a lot of bugs. The maxim was: You don’t have the time to do it right, but you have the time to do it over again.