“The thing I have noticed is that when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There is something wrong with the way that you are measuring it.”

— Jeff Bezos

Trusting your eyes over people with replication rates in the 20-50% range (ie, social scientists) is probably a rational choice.

There’s plenty of evidence that polls have systemic inaccuracies — question phrasing, people giving “right” answers, etc.

> Your lyin' eyes have a pretty small sample size, though. And not of a random sample.

What I vaguely recall from stats is that even a small sample size that is really far off from the larger sample is statistically nearly impossible. This means something is amiss, so I defer to my lyin' eyes. I know my eyes, don't know the authors.