4 ms·
I would take “openness”, as typed in an Economist article, to mean something like “[a country/government that] does not snuff out opinions contrary to that of t
by Fezzik 7y ago
I would take “openness”, as typed in an Economist article, to mean something like “[a country/government that] does not snuff out opinions contrary to that of the government, sometimes by disappearing, sending to concentration camps, and/or murdering contrarians”. Or something like that.
Also, I wish people would stop doing such mental gymnastics just to complain - your comment is effectively attempting to amplify the shortcomings of the study that are pointed out in the article you are quoting by then quoting them and adding slightly snarky commentary. Why? The author does a fine job framing what the study actually accomplishes, in their opinion, and then assessing its utility.
On that same note, The Economist article is a commentary on the study and not written by the authors of the actual study. So when The Economist says the results are “interesting” that is not Education First (the company behind the study) claiming their own results are interesting... it is an audience member doing so. Please be accurate if you are going to nitpick so aggressively.
The fact is the article does provide interesting commentary on the outcome of a vast and interesting survey while clearly acknowledging the interesting issues with the data.
- hmwhy 7y ago> On that same note, The Economist article is a commentary on the study and not written by the authors of the actual study. You are right, I completely missed that point when I commented and that is now an embarrassing mistake that I can only learn from and remind me to be more accurate in the future. > Also, I wish people would stop doing such mental gymnastics just to complain - your comment is effectively attempting to amplify the shortcomings of the study that are pointed out in the article you are quoting by then quoting them and adding slightly snarky commentary. I wasn't "attempting" to amplify those shortcomings, I was indeed amplifying those shortcomings. Once you have acknowledged that there isn't sufficient evidence to make any solid conclusions then the only logical next step is to get more evidence to support or refute your hypothesis instead of coming up with "interesting" commentary. It's not like the article is asking for help to get evidence to substantiate the study, or tries to give the reader any valuable, fact-based insights. So the fact that the author acknowledges that the study is "not entirely scientific" in multiple paragraphs, then proceed to use a misleading title and come up with conjectures to make the study seem more interesting/increase its value is a huge red flag to me. Edit: typo.