- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,653
Yeah, I picked up on that too, the "I was SO spot on about cell phone adoption so I must be right about this" preening. Because predicting the widespread adoption of (slightly)novel technology/gadgetry that is heavily advertised is always such a stretch, and I'm sure she was the ONLY one to see it.
I think it rankles me for a few different reasons, besides being anacdotal it
a) it sounds like selective self reporting. In the sense that someone could make 1000 predictions for the new milenium. 999 of them could be obsurd and have never eventuated, and 1 of them could be that landlines will be mostly replaced by mobiles and the articld would remain prima facie correct. I assume most of the readers would not feel as confident in the author's credability as a source though...
b) why is it even relevent? They really don"t even try to establish any links between the two incidents. If they want to use one case to support the other, then they need a causal model to argue why one is relevent to the other.
c) it actually seems like they might be using the cell phone article to eatablish credentials. Like they were right before so this establishes their capacity to comment on the future of car ownership. Whereas if this is the best qualification they have for commenting on trends in sales in the automobile industry then the baseline for this conversation should be skepticism and they should work to substantiate their claims with suitable supporting data.
The question is interesting. I could not read the article though, it just did not make logical sense to me. I get the feeling I can not do any good in this thread though, and am likely just to write things which will be unpopular.
But for what it is worth I completely agree with you.