3 ms·

This is a country that worships celebrities. Kardashian, Trump, Donald Grover, etc. What one do about it... There are a few good non celebrities we should be l

by rvo 9y ago

This is a country that worships celebrities. Kardashian, Trump, Donald Grover, etc. What one do about it... There are a few good non celebrities we should be listening to. Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson's, etc. Highly educated, high signal to noise, experts in their fields and not fking celebrities (at least not originally). I have nothing to gain by listening to a performers opinion about anything outside of what they perform in. I don't think these are smart people.

moate 9y ago
Why not? If someone is talking about a personal experience, why can't that be valuable to see another perspective? You can get Zimbardo talking about how Evil people aren't always evil, but sometimes evil due to their environment, and then you can see that reflected in art like Atlanta where characters are robbing their friends because they need resources to survive. Then you can hear a song by The Animals that shows the narrative across eras and ethnicity. Is this an "art isn't valuable" sort of option or "artists I don't like make art I don't like" sort of thing?
- rvo 9y ago
  More like art isn't valuable, especially in the context of the hyper commercialized, capitalistic "art scene" in America. I mean, this is the Kim Kardashian country, Dr. Phil country. Where a reality TV star is president and mindless latenight shows pretend to be arbiters of morality. Donald Grover is no different, and people who see him are no different.
  - moate 9y ago
    So what I said, but with more words. Okay, Got it. If you can't see why art is useful, I'm not going to try and waste time debating you. Good luck fighting the capitalists.
    - rvo 9y ago
      Yes, what you said -- you gave me two options, I gave you an answer. Not sure why you thought I am sitting here waiting to "debate" you. This is just my opinion. Please don't take an abstract opinion so personally.
- eksu 9y ago
  Why should we put so much weight into the personal experiences we're told about instead of statistics? Doesn't are reality then get warped by whatever people have the biggest megaphone for their personal experiences?
  - moate 9y ago
    Because that's how humans are. We're terrible with statistics and great with stories. This is reflected in every aspect of culture and human decision making (it's why the field of Game Theory even exists, to demonstrate better systems of choice). What about conflicting statistics? How do you decide which is better? Answer: a deeply complex personal series of metrics, built on your opinion of logic. There's no perfect choice tree for a person. You're always affected by emotion. You can try and pretend that doesn't exist, or you could use it, but you can't eliminate it.
thundergolfer 9y ago
I don't see which field Harris is supposed to be an expert in. He's a 'best-selling' author, though his books haven't great received industry awards. He's a pop-philosopher maybe, but certainly not an expert. Actual philosophers like Dennett, P. Churchland, and H. Putnam has directly and strongly criticised Harris's philosophy. He has a PhD in Neuroscience, but he's become so disconnected from the field I'd say it's ridiculous to think he's an expert in it. Even if this expertise is granted, Harris spends so little time in his life talking about Neuro it's of little relevance.
- rvo 9y ago
  I would still trust a PhD in any field over some commercialized "artist". At least he went through the rigorous process of obtaining that degree. It changes people for the good, in my opinion.
  - breuleux 9y ago
    My general impression about PhDs voicing opinions in a different field than the one they have expertise in is that they are able to apply a veneer of eloquence and complexity to the uninformed nonsense they spout, whereas celebrities are more transparently stupid. I'm not sure which is worse. In any case, if you want a good idea of the state of the art, you should know better than to listen to either group at all. You have to listen to top academics in the relevant field, and hope they agree (because unfortunately, unless you become an expert yourself, you're not qualified to figure which top academics are right, if they happen to differ).
    - rvo 9y ago
      Critical thinking is the most important tool for anyone, PhD or not. In this noisy world that we find ourselves in today, one MUST cultivate critical thinking skills. I don't trust phds because they "sound smart". Indeed, true smartness lies in simplifying complex concepts without much loss of information. I know the types of faux intellects you are referring to. Beware of them. I trust phds more because my prior on their ability to use critical thinking is much higher than a Hollywood dimwit who is paid to express emotions in people. It is still your job to trust, but verify. It is just easier to verify logically sound arguments or insights.

by rvo 9y ago

moate 9y ago

Why not? If someone is talking about a personal experience, why can't that be valuable to see another perspective? You can get Zimbardo talking about how Evil people aren't always evil, but sometimes evil due to their environment, and then you can see that reflected in art like Atlanta where characters are robbing their friends because they need resources to survive. Then you can hear a song by The Animals that shows the narrative across eras and ethnicity. Is this an "art isn't valuable" sort of option or "artists I don't like make art I don't like" sort of thing?

rvo 9y ago
More like art isn't valuable, especially in the context of the hyper commercialized, capitalistic "art scene" in America. I mean, this is the Kim Kardashian country, Dr. Phil country. Where a reality TV star is president and mindless latenight shows pretend to be arbiters of morality. Donald Grover is no different, and people who see him are no different.
- moate 9y ago
  So what I said, but with more words. Okay, Got it. If you can't see why art is useful, I'm not going to try and waste time debating you. Good luck fighting the capitalists.
  - rvo 9y ago
    Yes, what you said -- you gave me two options, I gave you an answer. Not sure why you thought I am sitting here waiting to "debate" you. This is just my opinion. Please don't take an abstract opinion so personally.
eksu 9y ago
Why should we put so much weight into the personal experiences we're told about instead of statistics? Doesn't are reality then get warped by whatever people have the biggest megaphone for their personal experiences?
- moate 9y ago
  Because that's how humans are. We're terrible with statistics and great with stories. This is reflected in every aspect of culture and human decision making (it's why the field of Game Theory even exists, to demonstrate better systems of choice). What about conflicting statistics? How do you decide which is better? Answer: a deeply complex personal series of metrics, built on your opinion of logic. There's no perfect choice tree for a person. You're always affected by emotion. You can try and pretend that doesn't exist, or you could use it, but you can't eliminate it.

thundergolfer 9y ago

I don't see which field Harris is supposed to be an expert in. He's a 'best-selling' author, though his books haven't great received industry awards. He's a pop-philosopher maybe, but certainly not an expert. Actual philosophers like Dennett, P. Churchland, and H. Putnam has directly and strongly criticised Harris's philosophy. He has a PhD in Neuroscience, but he's become so disconnected from the field I'd say it's ridiculous to think he's an expert in it. Even if this expertise is granted, Harris spends so little time in his life talking about Neuro it's of little relevance.

rvo 9y ago
I would still trust a PhD in any field over some commercialized "artist". At least he went through the rigorous process of obtaining that degree. It changes people for the good, in my opinion.
- breuleux 9y ago
  My general impression about PhDs voicing opinions in a different field than the one they have expertise in is that they are able to apply a veneer of eloquence and complexity to the uninformed nonsense they spout, whereas celebrities are more transparently stupid. I'm not sure which is worse. In any case, if you want a good idea of the state of the art, you should know better than to listen to either group at all. You have to listen to top academics in the relevant field, and hope they agree (because unfortunately, unless you become an expert yourself, you're not qualified to figure which top academics are right, if they happen to differ).
  - rvo 9y ago
    Critical thinking is the most important tool for anyone, PhD or not. In this noisy world that we find ourselves in today, one MUST cultivate critical thinking skills. I don't trust phds because they "sound smart". Indeed, true smartness lies in simplifying complex concepts without much loss of information. I know the types of faux intellects you are referring to. Beware of them. I trust phds more because my prior on their ability to use critical thinking is much higher than a Hollywood dimwit who is paid to express emotions in people. It is still your job to trust, but verify. It is just easier to verify logically sound arguments or insights.