The "N" Word
I've long thought that hidden within one of science's greatest strengths, is one of its greatest blind spots. "N" or number of subjects studied, lends strength to the conclusions in proportion to its increase. The greater the number, the more reliable the data is considered. That's as it should be of course. What that means though is that the data apply more to our species than to any given individual. So it seems to me, and if any of you know otherwise, please catch me up, that while science is a great tool for studying our species, it's almost irrelevant when it comes to understanding the outer reaches of individual capacity, as the weight of which would surely be diminished as ( n ) increases. How often does science do massive studies that have an ( n ) of 1? I've never heard of one. So we know, through science, a lot about the accomplishments and current performances of our species, while having to depend on not much more than folklore for an understanding of individual potential.
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
10 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
Absolutely agree. The greater the degree of āNā, the more generalised the output.
Really, for me, there is another process we have to do to ascertain the ideal sample for the study being undertaken which requires some evaluation of the hypothesis and the expected outcome, depending upon the context. 
Research is not as easy as some people think!
Geoffrey51
Level 8
Nov 22, 2019
1
I think this is an arbitrary distinction between "group" and "individual." There is really no distinction. An "individual" potential, to the extent that it is unique to that particular individual, cannot truly be understood without understanding why others do not share that uniqueness. An individual human being, taken out of the context of the species and society, cannot be meaningfully understood.
I would disagree that we know "a lot about the accomplishments and current performances of our species." We know some, but our understanding is very much muddled, and sometimes by mystical thinking. The arbitrary boundary between "individual" and "the rest of the universe" is just that, arbitrary.
AtheistReader
Level 7
Nov 22, 2019
2
Way to click bait like a shame less failing youtuber!
The problem with looking at studies of only one person means that the data only applies to that one person, and therefore might not apply to everyone.
That is why these types of studies typically don't get much traction in the social sciences, where finding one person who meets the criteria is akin to cherry picking data.
Happy_Killbot
Level 7
Nov 22, 2019
1
Some of the greatest leaps in neuropsychology came from individual case studies.
MrBeelzeebubbles
Level 7
Nov 22, 2019
3
Good to hear. Thanks.
does individual testing like blood sugar or iq or even something like height not give us an individual measure?
hankster
Level 9
Nov 22, 2019
1
Yes, the closer to the physical side, the easier to measure.
I originally wrote this as a response to Agnieszkaās post on happiness
[agnostic.com]
so I was thinking more about the intangibles.
N-word? You made me click. 
This requires some thought.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Nov 22, 2019
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.