[Stamp01]

There's this school of thought where difficult or counterintuitive concepts aren't adequately explained without a folksy anecdote. Obviously, I prefer hard data over folksy anecdotes, but I'm starting to think the folksy anecdote is a sideshow to distract from poor data or a lack of data to back up a claim.

Ever since I was made aware of Betteridge's law of headlines, and I started noticing it was correct based on my own experiences, I more or less refuse to read anything with a question as the title. I'm sure I'm missing a few good things with this practice, but I'm saving a lot of time missing out on wastes of time. Enough so that I consider it a net benefit.

Similarly, from now on, I'm going to be immediately suspicious of all claims that are served up with a side of folksy anecdotes.

The whole thing seems like a fallacy by appeal to "common sense".

[cudgy]

“I more or less refuse to read anything with a question as the title.”

Same here. Most of the content titled in this way is essentially vapid click-bait or a list of obvious facts with no real research, conclusions, or novel ideas.

[superhuzza]

"I started noticing it was correct based on my own experiences...I'm going to be immediately suspicious of all claims that are served up with a side of folksy anecdotes."

So Betteridge's Law is true based on your own, shall we say, anecdotal experience?

[Stamp01]

If my anecdote came off as folksy, I apologize. At least I didn't need to pepper in any racial slurs.