In 2007, Eliezer Yudkowsky penned a thought-provoking article that introduced the concept of “defying the data.” The premise is straightforward: when faced with new data that contradicts your established theory, how should one react?
The first option is to discard your theory in light of the new evidence. Alternatively, you could cling to your theory and, as Yudkowsky suggests, “attack the experiment”—casting doubts on the researchers’ integrity, the study’s design, or potential conflicts of interest. But there exists a third approach: simply disregarding the data altogether. Yudkowsky articulated this sentiment clearly:
With unapologetic boldness, I declared, “I am keeping my theory; your experiment is wrong.”
When an experimental result challenges the Standard Model, this is an important occurrence. It warrants recognition. An experiment that prompts traditionalists to consider discarding the data—or at least to approach it with skepticism—should be prioritized for replication. An experiment worthy of defiance deserves scrutiny!
However, it’s socially frowned upon to declare, “Forget your experimental falsification; I’m sticking to my theory.” Thus, the data must be covertly undermined—through character attacks on the researchers, subtle insinuations, or ominous hints of controversy. The data must be dismayed, minimized, and swept under the proverbial rug, because openly defying data is a social taboo. This is not an effective way to spotlight an anomalous result nor to secure funding for replication endeavors.
This rationale holds considerable weight. If a theory has been robustly supported by numerous studies, a single anomalous data point shouldn’t be sufficient to overturn it. Experiments, regardless of their meticulous design, can falter for various reasons. For instance, in 2011, researchers claimed to have observed neutrinos traveling faster than light—a finding that upended established physical theories. The reasonable response? To defy the data, as it’s far more plausible that established physics remains intact than that it has been entirely overturned due to a measurement error at CERN. (Spoiler alert: it was indeed a measurement error.)
Now, I must confess that my own act of defying data in this blog post lacks the precision of physics experiments, both in measurement and in the definition of the underlying phenomenon. However, there was a pivotal moment years ago that led me to proclaim, “I defy the data,” particularly regarding the narrative surrounding standard of living statistics.
During my college years, I found myself in a financially precarious situation, sharing a cramped apartment with two roommates while juggling full-time hours at Barnes and Noble to make ends meet. Around this time, I frequently encountered the claim that “young people today have a lower standard of living than their parents did at the same age!” Without hesitation, I decided to challenge that assertion.
Coincidentally, I had recently received a collection of childhood mementos from my parents, including a DVD containing footage from a VHS tape recorded when I was three and a half years old—circa 1987. My father filmed this video to share with his mother, documenting our family’s life. Watching this video, I was struck by how I was now nearly the same age my mother was at the time of recording. It offered a fascinating glimpse into our lives at similar ages.
How did our circumstances compare? Was I indeed living a lower standard of life than they had? Absolutely not! It’s true that, if we compared income brackets, I’d appear to be at a disadvantage relative to them. Even though the video was filmed in 1987 and I viewed it in 2011, my nominal income was lower than theirs. Adjusted for inflation, the disparity would have been even greater. Yet, my standard of living surpassed theirs by leaps and bounds; you’d have to pay me a small fortune to even contemplate living at their 1987 standard, with the limited goods and services available in rural Oregon. (In fact, I’m not sure there’s any amount of money that could entice me to live under those conditions, as so much of what I value in my current lifestyle wasn’t even conceivable back then.)
I could regale you with countless examples of the conveniences available to me in 2011 that my parents could only dream of having in 1987. But let’s illustrate this with one stark comparison. My dad, the cameraman for most of the video, used a heavy, clunky camera that had to be worn on his shoulder, producing low-resolution footage. They didn’t even own the camera; they merely rented it for a few days because it was far too expensive for them to own. Meanwhile, as I watched this video, I had a smartphone in my pocket, weighing just a few ounces and capable of recording high-definition video that could be shared globally in an instant. A device like that would have left 1987 audiences questioning whether we needed to resurrect witch trials!
People can debate the best methods for measuring living standards until they’re blue in the face. I don’t claim to have a groundbreaking alternative to propose. However, if your measure concludes that my living standard in 2011 was lower than my parents’ in 1987, then your measure is fundamentally flawed and deserves to be discarded. If that’s what your data indicates, then I staunchly defy the data.
