Individual cases

2018-03-23

• On the thought pattern of “not getting too deep into individual cases.”
• Although “n=1 doesn’t make a decision” is the correct attitude from a scientific point of view, that way of thinking implicitly assumes a subject on which repeated experiments can be performed.
• Using that way of thinking on a subject that cannot be repeatedly experimented with yields only the sterile output of “[Not enough examples to say anything.
  • If you are trying to make zero to one, if you are trying to do something new, it is rarer to have enough data on the subject to make a decision.
• If there is a bias to avoid delve into n=1 cases, then “try to abstraction” when exposed to that type of problem
• They consider it a positive act implicitly in phrases such as “trifling to throw away foliage,” and “essence.”
• On the other hand, this abstraction is an individual’s interpretation, not a fact # Fact and interpretation ref. Einstein’s empirical axiom verification model.
• It can also be described as a negative act of “arguing based on interpretation without properly delving into the Facts in front of you.”
• Even when confronted with the same fact, each person has a different interpretation of it.
• Discussions based on interpretation are prone to discrepancies.
• The ethnographic approach to this type of problem is to try to collect as much Related Information on the case as possible.
• Even though there is only one case and we cannot infer the distribution of the event itself from it, we can describe the generation system itself that produces the event if we know the Neighborhood Information.

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/個別の案件 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.