The point is, all this information is still being collected from the mouths or pencils of human beings, and the only thing that makes it more objective than a conversation is the scale and method. The statistic has 10,000 conversations for me, and distills them down to a set of data points. If I personally had 10,000 conversations and were an honest, self-reflecting person, I would still come away from it with those same data points.
... that scale and method kinda' make the difference, SG. That statistic is going to have 10k fairly specific conversations you're not going to manage in person, regardless of how honest or self-reflecting you are, and "it" is going to do so on a scale that, for you, is going to blur together into a half-meaningless mush unless you're some kind of incredible cognitive anomaly. If you personally had those tens of thousands of conversations, the chances of you actually coming away with the same data points is pretty bloody small -- you'd almost certainly come out with a significantly different set of data (also, the data set could easily change before you finished 'em all, but eh). That doesn't really have anything to do with the character of the people on either side of the conversations, it has to do with the nature of the beasts having them. We're really kinda' freaking
terrible on a mechanical level with dealing with processing that sort and that scale of information on our own.
I'd largely kinda' agree with the other stuff y'mentioned in that quoted post, but... well, that scale and that method is actually what makes the difference. Human error, misinterpretation, miscommunication, and all the et ceteras and so forths and so ons are still going to be there with statistical analysis, but... well, at least when it's actually done correctly, the methodology involved corrects for human error in a way that we're just not really
capable of on a personal level, or at least very, very few of us are.
I guess what I'm saying is that you actually nailed it. What makes it more objective is the scale and the method. That is
exactly what makes it more objective than thousands of anecdotes.
---
As to that question, well, I know my six neighbors and the surrounding area. If they say the creek is going to flood, I'm going to (almost certainly accurately) assume they're drunk or drugged and calmly ignore them :V
The mitigating factors are an issue, there, though. If the area I'm in flooded enough for it to reach where I'm at, sandbags and leaving for a week wouldn't help because most of the state would have sunk.
What's the point you're trying to make, T?