4 ms·

I am not sure I like this site. It uses strong language, but avoids anything controversial and provided case studies are pretty shallow. Nothing like some Yout

I am not sure I like this site. It uses strong language, but avoids anything controversial and provided case studies are pretty shallow. Nothing like some Youtube channels, where presenter spends one hour deconstructing some study, to its sources and sources of the sources.

tankenmate 10y ago
I suspect this course is teaching you how to do this type of deconstruction rather than to provide examples that are entertaining or controversial. Teach a person to fish, etc.
- jankotek 10y ago
  Have a look at case studies. Opinions, anecdotal evidence, no sources. There is not even basic fact checking on their sources (they just took a number from Fox News and ran with it). And I am not sure what to expect from a statistical course build around TED Talks, blog posts and NY Times articles. With chapters named like "The natural ecology of bullshit"...
  - wodenokoto 10y ago
    > (they just took a number from Fox News and ran with it). I don't know what you think that case study was about, but it isn't about whether the number was true or not. It is about whether that number represents something that is in line with the point of the article. > And I am not sure what to expect from a statistical course build around TED Talks, blog posts and NY Times articles. I wouldn't either, but it isn't a statistical course and it isn't build around TED Talks. It is not about learning what they are saying in a TED Talk, but about dissecting the TED Talk and understanding why you shouldn't just accept the content of it. All the case studies are examples of bullshit.
DonHopkins 10y ago
How To Deconstruct Almost Anything: My Postmodern Adventure, by Chip Morningstar, June 1993. "Academics get paid for being clever, not for being right." -- Donald Norman http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html
- csallen 10y ago
  Wow, thank you for sharing this. It's one of the more entertaining essays I've read, especially since I've recently come into contact with some of the literary critics and deconstructionists he's writing about.

tankenmate 10y ago

I suspect this course is teaching you how to do this type of deconstruction rather than to provide examples that are entertaining or controversial. Teach a person to fish, etc.

jankotek 10y ago
Have a look at case studies. Opinions, anecdotal evidence, no sources. There is not even basic fact checking on their sources (they just took a number from Fox News and ran with it). And I am not sure what to expect from a statistical course build around TED Talks, blog posts and NY Times articles. With chapters named like "The natural ecology of bullshit"...
- wodenokoto 10y ago
  > (they just took a number from Fox News and ran with it). I don't know what you think that case study was about, but it isn't about whether the number was true or not. It is about whether that number represents something that is in line with the point of the article. > And I am not sure what to expect from a statistical course build around TED Talks, blog posts and NY Times articles. I wouldn't either, but it isn't a statistical course and it isn't build around TED Talks. It is not about learning what they are saying in a TED Talk, but about dissecting the TED Talk and understanding why you shouldn't just accept the content of it. All the case studies are examples of bullshit.

DonHopkins 10y ago

How To Deconstruct Almost Anything: My Postmodern Adventure, by Chip Morningstar, June 1993. "Academics get paid for being clever, not for being right." -- Donald Norman http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html

csallen 10y ago
Wow, thank you for sharing this. It's one of the more entertaining essays I've read, especially since I've recently come into contact with some of the literary critics and deconstructionists he's writing about.