I’ll keep this post short for once, as it is more of a call out for conversation than a my usual ramblings.
I work with data a lot. I use traditional, contemporary and increasingly lend from the brains of others (and computers) to assist design and analysis.
I’ve recently read a lot of commentary around the disruption data can sometimes cause. And why we are (replace are with may be or should be) returning to a more gut driven decision making era.
I’ve often had to balance data I don’t ‘feel’ within my interpretation. Being brave enough to say the data you’ve paid me for said this, but I think the story is this, is a skill I learnt too late in my career.
But I actually think that is the point.
I learnt it, when I myself had become a point of influential data. On the very few topics I specialise in of course.
Data is only ever part of the picture
The best-known example of this is from WWII, when the US military analysed planes returning from combat, marking where the bullet holes were concentrated. The obvious assumption? Reinforce the places where damage was most frequent.
But Abraham Wald, a Hungarian-born statistician, flipped the thinking: you’re only seeing the planes that came back. The real data is in the aircraft that didn’t return, those are the weak points.
It’s a perfect example of what’s now called survivorship bias. It’s also a reminder that the data only works if the right person, with the ‘feels’ is involved in collecting, sorting and analysing the data.
Your lived experience is a form of data
I’ve worked in kids’ content and youth behaviour long enough to start noticing when something feels off in the findings. Sometimes that’s a red flag that we’re asking the wrong questions. Other times, it’s because there’s a subtle shift happening that no quant tool has picked up yet.
That feeling isn’t magic. It’s pattern recognition. The more time you spend immersed in a topic, the more attuned you are to what’s normal and what isn’t.
There’s actually science behind this. Psychologist Gary Klein has writes about naturalistic decision making. How experts make snap judgments based not on conscious analysis, but accumulated experience. Firefighters, nurses, athletes, they often make calls that “feel right” before they can explain why. It’s because their brains have seen hundreds of variations and silently coded what matters.
Malcom Gladwell calls it Thin Slicing. The ability to make snap decisions based on limited information, but recognising patterns. I’ve spokle about psychologist John Gottman before, he could watch a couple talk for 15 minutes and predict with over 90% accuracy if they’d stay together. Not by analysing every word, but by spotting micro-expressions and tone shifts. Thin slicing in action: small signals, big insight.
That’s not a rejection of data. It’s data in a different format.
What does this mean in practice?
We’re at a point now where data is everywhere and a vast amount of it means, or nothing in isolation. Anyone can show you a chart.
If you’re a researcher, strategist, or creator, OR just someone making something others will use of or consume. I think this is the real skill to be confident with:
To hold the numbers in one hand, and the feeling in the other, and know when to let them argue.
Some questions to ask when your using data, or your gut:
Am I seeing what's missing, not just what’s present?
Is this data / feeling reflecting truth, or just availability?
What would someone with lived experience say about this result?
Especially if thats the person using / consuming my creation
If the numbers say one thing, and the people say another, don’t assume the people are wrong. Get curious. There’s often something there.
In my next post, I am going to talk about how we can design the best digital experiences based on how Paco Underhill observed human movement in real life.