Opinion of "Lived Experiences"

[Mine the Strait]

One of my least-favorite catchphrases of modern internet libs. First, the term itself is redundant. Second, it's synonymous with "anecdote," which is not valid evidence in almost any circumstance. If I gave credence to every weirdo's "lived experience," I would have to believe in healing miracles, paranormal activity, and bigfoot (or at least, give them all much more credence than they're due).

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Not at all bulletproof, but useful in plenty of circumstances.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

Option 2

[Flats the Flounder]

One of my least-favorite catchphrases of modern internet libs. First, the term itself is redundant. Second, it's synonymous with "anecdote," which is not valid evidence in almost any circumstance. If I gave credence to every weirdo's "lived experience," I would have to believe in healing miracles, paranormal activity, and bigfoot (or at least, give them all much more credence than they're due).

I'm probably more sympathetic to the idea of listening to one's personal experiences than you are, but it really depends on the situation being discussed, and whether there actually can be any objective evidence provided. If it's a really subjective issue where no hard evidence relating to it can be found, then I think bringing up anecdotes works perfectly fine.

For example, is there any evidence of "lived experience" being an internet lib catchphrase outside of your own lived experience?

[Mine the Strait]

One of my least-favorite catchphrases of modern internet libs. First, the term itself is redundant. Second, it's synonymous with "anecdote," which is not valid evidence in almost any circumstance. If I gave credence to every weirdo's "lived experience," I would have to believe in healing miracles, paranormal activity, and bigfoot (or at least, give them all much more credence than they're due).

I'm probably more sympathetic to the idea of listening to one's personal experiences than you are, but it really depends on the situation being discussed, and whether there actually can be any objective evidence provided. If it's a really subjective issue where no hard evidence relating to it can be found, then I think bringing up anecdotes works perfectly fine.

For example, is there any evidence of "lived experience" being an internet lib catchphrase outside of your own lived experience?

Let's say hypothetically that there isn't any evidence that this is a common catchphrase among terminally online leftists (there are plenty of articles and websites stating the contrary, for the record). If this were the case, and I unduly extrapolated from my personal experience, then you should have the right to call me out on it. I should not be allowed to counter with "But this is my lived experience!" because what we're debating is whether that experience is universal (or even common).

[Flats the Flounder]

One of my least-favorite catchphrases of modern internet libs. First, the term itself is redundant. Second, it's synonymous with "anecdote," which is not valid evidence in almost any circumstance. If I gave credence to every weirdo's "lived experience," I would have to believe in healing miracles, paranormal activity, and bigfoot (or at least, give them all much more credence than they're due).

I'm probably more sympathetic to the idea of listening to one's personal experiences than you are, but it really depends on the situation being discussed, and whether there actually can be any objective evidence provided. If it's a really subjective issue where no hard evidence relating to it can be found, then I think bringing up anecdotes works perfectly fine.

For example, is there any evidence of "lived experience" being an internet lib catchphrase outside of your own lived experience?

Let's say hypothetically that there isn't any evidence that this is a common catchphrase among terminally online leftists (there are plenty of articles and websites stating the contrary, for the record). If this were the case, and I unduly extrapolated from my personal experience, then you should have the right to call me out on it. I should not be allowed to say "But this is my lived experience!" because what we're debating is whether that experience is universal (or even common).

For the record, I don't disagree with you that I've also heard plenty of people bring up "lived experience," but I don't necessarily see it as a problem when the issue being discussed is one where you can only really bring up anecdotal evidence. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I'm going to guess that the articles you're citing are full of anecdotal evidence of their own. I doubt they have statistics showing how many people on Twitter for example are using the term "lived experience," along with the political affiliation of everyone who's using it. I could be wrong, though.

The truth is that if you want to throw out all anecdotal evidence, then we should be here discussing tax margins or something instead of whether a specific experience you or I have had is universal, because virtually no aspect of the human experience is universal.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Whether right or wrong, testimonies are always going to be more powerful than statistics.  And, that's even true for me (despite intellectually knowing that statistics are more representative than one person's experience).

[HisGrace]

Olawakandi's unlived experiences on the astral plane are worth may more than these people's lived experiences.

[Mine the Strait]

One of my least-favorite catchphrases of modern internet libs. First, the term itself is redundant. Second, it's synonymous with "anecdote," which is not valid evidence in almost any circumstance. If I gave credence to every weirdo's "lived experience," I would have to believe in healing miracles, paranormal activity, and bigfoot (or at least, give them all much more credence than they're due).

I'm probably more sympathetic to the idea of listening to one's personal experiences than you are, but it really depends on the situation being discussed, and whether there actually can be any objective evidence provided. If it's a really subjective issue where no hard evidence relating to it can be found, then I think bringing up anecdotes works perfectly fine.

For example, is there any evidence of "lived experience" being an internet lib catchphrase outside of your own lived experience?

Let's say hypothetically that there isn't any evidence that this is a common catchphrase among terminally online leftists (there are plenty of articles and websites stating the contrary, for the record). If this were the case, and I unduly extrapolated from my personal experience, then you should have the right to call me out on it. I should not be allowed to say "But this is my lived experience!" because what we're debating is whether that experience is universal (or even common).

For the record, I don't disagree with you that I've also heard plenty of people bring up "lived experience," but I don't necessarily see it as a problem when the issue being discussed is one where you can only really bring up anecdotal evidence. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I'm going to guess that the articles you're citing are full of anecdotal evidence of their own. I doubt they have statistics showing how many people on Twitter for example are using the term "lived experience," along with the political affiliation of everyone who's using it. I could be wrong, though.

The truth is that if you want to throw out all anecdotal evidence, then we should be here discussing tax margins or something instead of whether a specific experience you or I have had is universal, because virtually no aspect of the human experience is universal.

I share plenty of anecdotes on this site, but only because I think they're funny or interesting, not because I think they serve as proof of anything. At best, an anecdote can be illustrative of a general point, but it can't prove any universal truth aside from "sometimes this type of thing happens."

Again, I'm not a hardliner on option 3 here. Anecdotes can be fun in the right context. But I don't think it's fair for anyone to get cranky that others aren't deferring to their "lived experiences."

[DaleCooper]

Most people do not have interesting lives.

[RI]

Observation is the first step of the scientific method, and it should be treated as that: a way to build hypotheses or explanations to be tested. Observation should not supersede the results of that testing, although it can illuminate potential shortcomings in testing that has been done and therefore promote further inquiry and guide how to build better tests.

[Flats the Flounder]

One of my least-favorite catchphrases of modern internet libs. First, the term itself is redundant. Second, it's synonymous with "anecdote," which is not valid evidence in almost any circumstance. If I gave credence to every weirdo's "lived experience," I would have to believe in healing miracles, paranormal activity, and bigfoot (or at least, give them all much more credence than they're due).

I'm probably more sympathetic to the idea of listening to one's personal experiences than you are, but it really depends on the situation being discussed, and whether there actually can be any objective evidence provided. If it's a really subjective issue where no hard evidence relating to it can be found, then I think bringing up anecdotes works perfectly fine.

For example, is there any evidence of "lived experience" being an internet lib catchphrase outside of your own lived experience?

Let's say hypothetically that there isn't any evidence that this is a common catchphrase among terminally online leftists (there are plenty of articles and websites stating the contrary, for the record). If this were the case, and I unduly extrapolated from my personal experience, then you should have the right to call me out on it. I should not be allowed to say "But this is my lived experience!" because what we're debating is whether that experience is universal (or even common).

For the record, I don't disagree with you that I've also heard plenty of people bring up "lived experience," but I don't necessarily see it as a problem when the issue being discussed is one where you can only really bring up anecdotal evidence. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I'm going to guess that the articles you're citing are full of anecdotal evidence of their own. I doubt they have statistics showing how many people on Twitter for example are using the term "lived experience," along with the political affiliation of everyone who's using it. I could be wrong, though.

The truth is that if you want to throw out all anecdotal evidence, then we should be here discussing tax margins or something instead of whether a specific experience you or I have had is universal, because virtually no aspect of the human experience is universal.

I share plenty of anecdotes on this site, but only because I think they're funny or interesting, not because I think they serve as proof of anything. At best, an anecdote can be illustrative of a general point, but it can't prove any universal truth aside from "sometimes this type of thing happens."

Again, I'm not a hardliner on option 3 here. Anecdotes can be fun in the right context. But I don't think it's fair for anyone to get cranky that others aren't deferring to their "lived experiences."

I'm generally with you here. I'm plenty willing to use anecdotes from my life to show why I believe something, but it's ridiculous to ask others to change their mind simply because of my own experiences, especially when they had a different experience from you.

But I think the true usefulness of anecdotes as evidence really comes from when someone actually did have a similar experience to you, and thus is willing to hear you out on whatever insight you may have. It's why ethos is considered to be such a central component of rhetoric.

[Ferguson97]

A single person's lived experience might not necessarily be useful, but a collection of lived experiences certainly can be.

[Mine the Strait]

A single person's lived experience might not necessarily be useful, but a collection of lived experiences certainly can be.

How do you feel about the innumerable "lived experiences" of Americans who attest to seeing ghosts and miracles?

[Ferguson97]

A single person's lived experience might not necessarily be useful, but a collection of lived experiences certainly can be.

How do you feel about the innumerable "lived experiences" of Americans who attest to seeing ghosts and miracles?

Notice how I said “can be useful” and not “must be uncritically accepted in every single conceivable context”?

You can obviously dismiss people’s perceptions and “experiences” that are inconsistent with the laws of nature. And I’m not going to speak for everyone, but when I use the term, it almost exclusively refers to things like Black people noticing that they’re more likely to be watched in department stores or followed by police despite doing nothing wrong, or women not being listened to by their doctors, or having their ideas ignored by colleagues in meetings, or being sexualized by grown men from a young age.

[vitoNova]

Pure fascism.

For example, I have zero experience in STEM, but I know things that would make Einstein's toes curl.

[Mine the Strait]

A single person's lived experience might not necessarily be useful, but a collection of lived experiences certainly can be.

How do you feel about the innumerable "lived experiences" of Americans who attest to seeing ghosts and miracles?

Notice how I said “can be useful” and not “must be uncritically accepted in every single conceivable context”?

My question was more about how you choose which ones to give credence to.

[25 Abril/Aprile Sempre!]

In my lived experience, the phrase is much more often used to illustrate that sometimes a certain thing does happen than to extrapolate that that thing is the universal normal. However, I realize this does not necessarily refute the OP's premise.

[User2663]

I once got banned from a forum for expressing my thoughts on the concept, so I'll pass.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

The concept of 'lived experience' occurred when those on the right claimed they heard their child's education during Covid of 'critical race theory' which contributed to the election of Glenn Youngkin in Virginia in 2021 and when Democrats said 'CRT is not taught in school' Republicans essentially then campaigned on 'Democrats are denying your lived experience.'

So, 'lived experience' is hardly just some left wing thing even if the term originated with those on the left and the Republicans had a point that people don't like having others try to invalidate their 'lived experience' no matter how false it may be.

[Ferguson97]

A single person's lived experience might not necessarily be useful, but a collection of lived experiences certainly can be.

How do you feel about the innumerable "lived experiences" of Americans who attest to seeing ghosts and miracles?

Notice how I said “can be useful” and not “must be uncritically accepted in every single conceivable context”?

My question was more about how you choose which ones to give credence to.

I give credence when marginalized groups describe their experiences interacting with empowered groups.

[Proud Family Values]

I think its important.  If someone was personally affected by an issue that I was not, I'd want to hear their story and that would mean more to me than hearing the opinions of pundits, or reading a textbook about the topic.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I find the term very annoying because it's generally deployed so someone can use their own personal life anecdotes (often totally fabricated!) as a veto in a conversation about broad trends.

[All Along The Watchtower]

If you can just get your mind together
Then come on across to me
We'll hold hands an' then we'll watch the sun rise from the bottom of the sea
But first
Are you experienced?
Have you ever been experienced?
Well, I have

[Casino Democrat]

I think I largely agree with John Dule. A lot folks who use this kind of phrasing tend to be highly subjective af when it comes to determining what is a "lived experience deserving consideration and respect" vs. what is "just your anecdotal experience."

Like you can determine on a level which anecdotal experiences have more merit, but at least have the honesty to still call it as such rather than use something like "lived experiences" to imply its goodly and moral to use in one instance but not so in another situation.