View Single Post
11-11-2012, 08:21 AM
Registered User
Shareefruck's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,796
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
The difference you see is anecdotal. Its only clear because we apply context to situations to help understand it better. Additional information could change that context entirely. There's no definitive conclusion we can make as spectators on these sorts of player qualities.

Food for thought. Nothing I say is going to stop sports fan from questioning athletes character. Heck, its probably not even going to stop me, either (I dislike Cody Hodgson and subscribe to all sorts of assumptions about him).
It shouldn't stop it, IMO. Since when does everything have to be scientifically and objectively defineable for an opinion to rationally be formed?

I think anecdotal evidence is enough reason to make the assumption until that new information comes to light (although I can't imagine what type of information could convince you of otherwise in this case-- we're not talking about two guys who are neck and neck in that category, we're talking about Linden and Naslund-- I don't think injuries or luck or freak coincidence would be the reason), personally. Wiping that out entirely is totally unfair and inacurrate on its own, IMO. We have subjective conclusions based on what we've seen, analysed, and believe-- anecdotal evidence may not be perfect, but it's still evidence that we should factor in (alot, in my opinion).

Character can't be objectively defined but should that stop us from forming opinions about people we meet?

Last edited by Shareefruck: 11-11-2012 at 08:37 AM.
Shareefruck is online now   Reply With Quote