My Search for Statistics, Not Anecdotes

Sgt. Jacob Blaylock

         My research on the topic of veteran suicides during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has provided me with a lot of statistics. Everyone loves statistics but at some point, there is only so much one can do with them. Sure, this stat- "Of the more than 30,000 suicides in this country each year, fully 20 percent of them are acts by veterans"-is staggering. But what exactly does that mean? How can that be put in context? 

         It wasn't until I found a six-page article chronicling the life and suicide of Sgt. Jacob Blaylock, that I realized how important personal anecdotes are in my research. His story, from when he began his service, to the close deaths of two of his comrades six days before he was scheduled to come home, to the psychological problems he faces upon returning home, up until his suicide in 2007, provide me more information and context than many statistics can. I realized that I need to include more evidence than that of the logos type. Logos, according to about.com, is "persuasion by demonstration of logical proof." But having diverse sources also means having diverse evidence: Ethos and Pathos. While ethos and pathos mean nothing without logos as the backbone, these types of evidence are just as important. 

For some reason, though, we are attracted to statistics. I think I can speak for a lot of fellow students in saying that we crave statistics for our paper. Maybe it's because citing statistics is easier than anecdotes. Maybe it's because we think those statistics speak for themselves. But, as we have learned this year, no evidence speaks for itself. No statistic can speak for itself without context. 

Why do you think we crave statistics so much? In what ways are personal anecdotes more useful than statistics?