This is a great lesson for hackers in general. Many of us, myself included, have a tendency to expect data to automatically win arguments. I mean, if something is irrefutably true with the data to prove it, that's the end of the discussion, right? But just as in this case, in reality, it's not even the beginning. Whether you're trying to convince your manager to go in a particular direction, or you're trying to motivate your employees to rally behind a cause, the data will help you decide where to go, but you need the right story to get people to follow you there.
And just because it's a "story" doesn't mean it's some BS you make up to get people to agree with you. It's more about considering the other person's point of view (their poorly-documented public API, if you like), and building an interface between that and your data.
The best manager I ever had was great at this. He was a former developer who understood the tech but knew how to speak the executives' language. You could convince him with a good tech story and then he'd turn around and sell to his bosses with a good business story.
Agreed! I think this also cuts to the fact that data doesn't win arguments. Data + time spent studying and understanding data wins.
Most people can't or don't want to take time (it's inefficient). So they make decisions based on estimates / stories / approximations / biases / gut and the world keeps spinning.
Which means your goal should be to most accurately frame your data in terms of their stories (translating as much or little as they require).
And just because it's a "story" doesn't mean it's some BS you make up to get people to agree with you. It's more about considering the other person's point of view (their poorly-documented public API, if you like), and building an interface between that and your data.