Re:Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app...
by c0pium on Tuesday December 12, 2023 @01:55PM
(#38616631)
Interesting that you chose to ask for a citation to an anecdote but not to the person who cited a specific percentage. You might want to google “confirmation bias”.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app...
by freedomben on Tuesday December 12, 2023 @05:52PM
(#38619893)
Interesting that you completely overlooked this part of my comment: "(Citation also would be good for GP's claim, but they did specify "think" and were clearly speculating, whereas you make your assertion with certainty)"
Might want to Google "Confirmation Bias"
Re:Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app...
by c0pium on Tuesday December 12, 2023 @06:24PM
(#38620263)
Oh, I saw that fig leaf, I just realized that it’s meaningless. Whether or not someone includes the phrase in front of their assumptions makes absolutely no difference. It’s just a Rorschach test.
Edit: I suspect I’m wrong, adding it probably causes their assumptions to be given more weight for no reason, as happened here. Interesting observation, that’s in line with the research that disclosing conflicting interests actually causes people to weight the compromised advice more highly than they otherwise would.