# Straight Dope Syndrome

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [February 21, 2000, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565 "2000-02-21T12:29:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\
**Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/61 "2000-03-01T19:54:00Z")

</div>

Spiritus:

I agree, just wasn’t willing to put it forward that bluntly. 😉

Polycarp:

I guess all we can do is point out what _we_ think is extraordinary, and if the other person doesn’t agree, we’re screwed. In that case, it’s only fair to at least try to pick apart the logic first, before requiring a cite. (and more fun, as Spiritus said)

I’m not aware of what Captain Picard has said on this subject, but I would be interested to know, if you wouldn’t mind a quick synopsis. Oh wait, Potter…  
nope, still don’t know 😉

PeeQueue

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\
**Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/62 "2000-03-01T22:14:00Z")

</div>

Poly:

> [@](#):
>
> From my work with disturbed teenagers (which I think I’ve mentioned), I can report that the gang leaders of my acquaintance were in favor of legalizing drugs. However, they were generally in favor of minimal government interference with private lives anyway.

But were they peaceful honest people? 🙂

PeeQueue:

> [@](#):
>
> I still think it bears mentioning that requesting a cite was not necessary to get him to revise his statement.

And here I thought it took _both_ the request _and_ this entire thread.

> [@](#):
>
> If I state, “Most people do not like to live in houses painted with polka-dots,” should a cite be required for that?

What do _you_ think?

You’re never going to get a final ruling on which assertions need support and which don’t. But we’ve got lots of smart people here, and they’ll let you know when they want backup. It all comes down to who you want to convince, and whether or not they are willing to take your assertions at face value.

Realistically, there’s only so much you can figure out through logic. When dealing with the real world, _every step from things we know for sure is a little bit weaker_, as small discrepancies between logic and reality pile up. Instinctively, I knew that the typical gang leader’s attitudes were a long way from _my_ experience, and I fully expected that they were a long way from Lib’s, too.

I could have been wrong; it could have been Lib, not Poly, who had worked with troubled youths. If so, his telling me so would have backed his claim. But absent that, _either one_ of us who made a claim about gang leaders’ attitudes about _anything_ would have been way out on a limb, if we were doing it on the basis of logic alone.

* * *

_Second Place (tie), Most Valuable Poster_ (GD)  
_Second Place, Best Scientific/Expert Explanations_ (GD)  
Not that it’s gone to my head or anything.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565.md?page=3)