4 ms·

Not saying it was a brilliant article, but I got all three points without having to read it multiple times, and I thought it was quite clear. I liked that he di

Not saying it was a brilliant article, but I got all three points without having to read it multiple times, and I thought it was quite clear. I liked that he didn't spoon feed the reader with predigested conclusions.

bjterry 11y ago
The problem is that by not plainly stating his position, if someone challenges it he can always fall back on, "I didn't say that" which is annoying for interlocutors. He doesn't even have to be the kind of person who would fall back on that defense, because it's so common that people are on their guard for it. It's difficult to have a quality discourse with someone that won't make their point plainly and argues mostly by implication.
serpentor 11y ago
I'm complaining about his beating around the bush, not a reading comprehension thing. I like to know where the author stands on the topic at the outset, otherwise the article feels dishonest. For example: I think there are a lot of people lying to themselves and others about their own ancestry. Compared to: Isn't it interesting that so many people feel compelled to form opinions about how we might notice that there are statistical variances, when comparing observable heritage, as compared to reported heritage? I wonder why that would be? Some might say these are alleged fabrications, but then again this could all be very innocent.
- lobster_johnson 11y ago
  But that's clearly inferred by this: In the United States alone, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma estimates there are over 200 fraudulent groups claiming to be Cherokee. Visit websites devoted to genealogy, and one will find scores of Americans expressing their disappointment when DNA testing contradicts family legnds about great, great grandma being Cherokee. So, first of all, there are groups that outright make fraudulent claims about Cherokee ancestry. Secondly, there are lots of people who have believed — and claimed — to be descendants of Cherokee who discover that they have in fact been mislead. You could argue that he doesn't provide the evidence (who are these 200 groups, and where do we find these "scores of Americans expressing their disappointment"?), but that's par for the course in a fluffy article like this. I don't see any bushes being beaten around, however.

bjterry 11y ago

The problem is that by not plainly stating his position, if someone challenges it he can always fall back on, "I didn't say that" which is annoying for interlocutors. He doesn't even have to be the kind of person who would fall back on that defense, because it's so common that people are on their guard for it. It's difficult to have a quality discourse with someone that won't make their point plainly and argues mostly by implication.

serpentor 11y ago

I'm complaining about his beating around the bush, not a reading comprehension thing. I like to know where the author stands on the topic at the outset, otherwise the article feels dishonest. For example: I think there are a lot of people lying to themselves and others about their own ancestry. Compared to: Isn't it interesting that so many people feel compelled to form opinions about how we might notice that there are statistical variances, when comparing observable heritage, as compared to reported heritage? I wonder why that would be? Some might say these are alleged fabrications, but then again this could all be very innocent.

lobster_johnson 11y ago
But that's clearly inferred by this: In the United States alone, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma estimates there are over 200 fraudulent groups claiming to be Cherokee. Visit websites devoted to genealogy, and one will find scores of Americans expressing their disappointment when DNA testing contradicts family legnds about great, great grandma being Cherokee. So, first of all, there are groups that outright make fraudulent claims about Cherokee ancestry. Secondly, there are lots of people who have believed — and claimed — to be descendants of Cherokee who discover that they have in fact been mislead. You could argue that he doesn't provide the evidence (who are these 200 groups, and where do we find these "scores of Americans expressing their disappointment"?), but that's par for the course in a fluffy article like this. I don't see any bushes being beaten around, however.