Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whose to say "cited findings" have any more value than "anecdata". The institutions that build these national and international statistics do so with bias and goals, or without complete data. For example, how can a bureau make a national statistics on crime accurate when cities intentional report crime incorrectly to look better in statistics. To think "cited findings" is gospel truth is naive. I know it's highly des…
Anecdotes are not a very useful tool in discussions about generalisations. They provide little evidence aside from saying that it's a category of event that can exist. No one at any point has said citations are gospel. Just that anecdotes aren't adding much to the discussion at hand. If you've got issues with the cited data, be precise instead of casting general aspersions on academia.
I posited a cause based on the lived experiences people shared with me.
You're free to disagree with my conclusion, or to suggest an alternative cause. None of the cited data has actually done either of those things.