10 reasons why the lived experience argument is flawed

More and more companies are making data-driven decisions they have even gone as far as automating the process with self-correcting machine-learning models to run their business from.

Creating public policy by polling and imagined slights is a poor way to govern people. How can that view even be validated objectively?

The legal system is based on objective truth not lived experience. If we ran courts via ad hoc laws, decisions would be based on feelings and subjectivity, and a lack of consistency in decision-making.

The lived experience incorporates several unvalidated assumptions and accepts them on the face of it.

If two people have different experience that lead to conflicting state about reality. How do we determine which statement is true?

It relies on personal experience or anecdotal evidence instead of facts or research. This can make the argument seem more persuasive, but it is not a sound way to support a claim.

People hide behind "opinions" when they say something outrageous

I remember when Moodys was being crucified by the US congress on how their rating contributed to the financial crisis of 2008. There response was, "We were just giving our opinion."

In the same way, when people get caught saying something incendiary, they just use the I was just stating an opinion; not everyone will agree. But hey I am off the hook. It's mild public gaslighting - "you interpreted what I said wrong if you really analyzed what I meant, you would see I am right."

I think there is a balance between how you craft words in a public domain vs how people interpret things. The truth about human nature we tend to assume negative intent on words. And you can't sit all the day imagining all the negative connotations of your words. But a good question would ask, "If the average person reads this, how would they likely view it."

There are dedicated companies (PR firms, spin doctors, etc.) that help craft messages so that people don't misunderstand something. And cynically, you might say they craft messages to send erroneous signals like dog whistling. But it does prove that a properly developed message will reduce misinterpretation.

People assume that if you have experience in something, you must be good at it. This happens a lot with hiring candidates.

• What was the nature of the experience?
• Did they use the best practices?
• What was the quality of their output, and did it lead to positive, tangible outcomes?

We often go through life copying social norms or making quick judgments and creating arbitrary rules to help navigate the world. And we think we are right, maybe it's by feeling, culture, religion, or social proof. That does not mean that it is accurate or based on reality.

Everyone has different lived experiences, and it would be impossible to fully comprehend what any one person might be thinking. But to suggest that an individual worldview is true of the larger world is catastrophic at worst and arrogant at best.