strong disagree. there exist truths on a population level. oxycontin addicts traverse similar behavioral patterns, for example. for the worst of all cognitive biases i would say confirmation bias.
I don't think the person you replied to was claiming otherwise. The problem is when one takes those population-level truths and blindly applies them to individuals. You might be right 80% of the time (or whatever) with that approach, but that doesn't help when you're wrong _this_ time with the specific person in front of you.
> You might be right 80% of the time
or, as in my example of a collective of oxycontin users, you might be able to predict certain of their actions at a 99% efficiency rate, and that may enable you to make statements that apply to the collective as a whole, and as individuals.
I don't mean that one should be naive about things. You might correctly observe that a high percentage of Oxycontin addicts exhibit behaviour X, and therefor you might want to keep a wary eye out for that behaviour when dealing with an individual Oxycontin addict. Of course that way lies confirmation bias, which one must also guard against. But it's still better than saying that because most Oxy addicts exhibit trait X, this individual addict will necessarily exhibit trait X. That's worse than confirmation bias becuause it's pre-confirmation bias. You're treating statistics about a group as evidence about an individual -- and that's wrong.
i think that’s the literal disagreement we are having
> I've known a variety of addicts
how bout they try to get more oxy by any means necessary? i think i’m safe. i also think that some people really like to believe the line you’re selling, but that’s all it is. want and belief. some call it faith. whatever you want to call it, it’s wrong.