There's this school of thought where difficult or counterintuitive concepts aren't adequately explained without a folksy anecdote. Obviously, I prefer hard data over folksy anecdotes, but I'm starting to think the folksy anecdote is a sideshow to distract from poor data or a lack of data to back up a claim.

Ever since I was made aware of Betteridge's law of headlines, and I started noticing it was correct based on my own experiences, I more or less refuse to read anything with a question as the title. I'm sure I'm missing a few good things with this practice, but I'm saving a lot of time missing out on wastes of time. Enough so that I consider it a net benefit.

Similarly, from now on, I'm going to be immediately suspicious of all claims that are served up with a side of folksy anecdotes.

The whole thing seems like a fallacy by appeal to "common sense".