5 ms·

> its author is a lawyer who's spent most of his adult life trying to get PFOA banned. He is not a neutral actor. I dislike this logic: it penalises expertise

by gmac 6y ago

> its author is a lawyer who's spent most of his adult life trying to get PFOA banned. He is not a neutral actor. I dislike this logic: it penalises expertise and commitment. It’s similar to the way broadcasters frequently dismiss people as “activists”. As far as I’m aware, he is only not neutral because he has learned a lot about the problem and found it serious enough to devote himself to doing something about it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
manquer 6y ago
There is difference between journalist talking to such an expert and writing the article, than the expert writing himself.experise does not mean he will be unbiased. You need a neutral perspective, same reason dev should be his own qa, or lawyer should not represent himself or a doctor not operate on family. While they can be objective and unbiased, it is right to question that, when the author has a vested interest in the matter as it easy to loose perspective.
- fsloth 6y ago
  Bias is not bad in sciences. It means the person is dedicated to his/her cause. For example, if you read through nobel price winners you find one very strong common factor. They were always emotionally involved in their work. Humans are emotional beings, not robots. If you want to have high performance, you want the performer to care deeply about his work. Biases should not be hidden though! I think that is the pathology people generally confuse with bias. Bias is a positive thing, hiding it is not. This does not contradict the above examples (lawyer, doctor, dev) but rather highlights there are different situations and no single approach to bias suffices. Besides, journalism is almost never unbiased. If you don't know the bias of the writer, it means the writer has a hidden agenda. Much better to flaunt the agenda, then.
  - 7952 6y ago
    And our reaction is entirely coloured by bias and our own baseline understanding of the world. We expect higher quality argument from the side we are less comfortable with. And happily accept less proof on concepts that we are already familiar with. No one worries about bias when you are talking about pistgres.
- collyw 6y ago
  The Guardian is far from neutral. It's one of the most biased publications out there in my opinion.
  - meloentje 6y ago
    Ah right. There's only two categories right? Publications you agree with: unbiased. Publications you don't agree with: biased.
- bloat 6y ago
  Note that the article is in the Opinion section of the newspaper. You shouldn't expect unbiased reporting here, it's the designated space for editorializing and well... opinions.
_cs2017_ 6y ago
> it penalises expertise and commitment When weighing people's opinions, expertise should be rewarded but commitment should be penalized. Committed people have a psychological need to prove themselves right and to discount contrary evidence. This is due to a combination of conscious and subconscious factors: enhancing one's social and career standing, making oneself feel better about the invested effort, etc. Among people who spent a decade or two arguing in favor of a certain theory, not many would be comfortable admitting they were wrong all along. There is a period of time when someone is already an expert but not yet committed to any particular belief. This is an excellent time to listen to their opinions. Unfortunately, this period is usually quite short for most people. Sometimes (as in this case), the commitment is quite obvious; at other times, it may be hard to detect it.
- danieldbird 6y ago
  Here here. Well said.
- academi 6y ago
  By this argument, few CEOs, salespeople, or advertising execs should ever have been heard. Also, in the history of science and philosophy, you’ll find that the majority of those whose work significantly advanced human knowledge were committed to their work and to the promotion of their ideas.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > By this argument, few CEOs, salespeople, or advertising execs should ever have been heard. You say this as if it was a negative. Besides the history of science is very fuzzy, and complex enough that "commitment" by itself is too vague a term. Also, science is not homogeneous enough for any kind of it to be a positive on every field.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
    > By this argument, few CEOs, salespeople, or advertising execs should ever have been heard. That is absolutely correct.
eclat 6y ago
According to Hans Rosling, his research shows activists have a less accurate picture than the general public on the issue they dedicate their activism to.
- howlgarnish 6y ago
  Interestingly enough, Hans Rosling's own activism revolved around overturning accepted wisdom, so what happens when you apply this result to his own work?
  - pas 6y ago
    Parent comment is a bit too general. His claim was about world health and development, not all activists in all areas. (As far as I know. If there's a study about all activists, please correct me.)
AntiImperialis2 6y ago
Committed experts are basically activists, they are people with grandiose delusions who think that particular thing is so important that they committed their lives to it. Our bodies are full of "toxins". For example, our bones are made up of calcium and phosphorus. Yet, if you eat a pinch of powdered phosphorus, you die.
NoOneNew 6y ago
Here's the problem the commentor is probably getting at: people won't believe the narrative. It's not hard to convince me that any type of plastic is bad. I dont use plastic containers for food. Only wood, metal and glass are in my kitchen when it contacts food. I dont even like plastic for anything else. If I can opt for something that's not made of plastic, I'd rather pay a premium than have it all if I can (obviously what I'm holding to type this flies in my belief's face, but right now the anti-plastic war I wage is a hill I will die on and it'll be a brutal death). Yet, after reading the article, I have doubts on what he's claiming. Journalism used to be emotional only at very key, important points. The deadpan nature allowed for disciplined emotional tones to have extreme, nearly atomic impact on a subject. That used to move people. Now, everything is a life or death struggle. For fucks sake, figuring out what bathroom to use was and still is a "heated debate". 99% of people have zero issues figuring this out. Less than 1% are arguing yet everyone has to feel like THIS is what will collapse society if we dont fix it. The constant barrage of outlandish "passionate" claims to "save the world" along with the deep dark shady underworld of business, after a while, "yup, whatever". While I will always err on the side of "fuck plastic", I will also admit that I'm a casualty of the current "journalism" climate of ever increasing sense of doom around every corner. I dont believe the author even though I philosophically should knee jerk to being a cheerleader all because of the tone of the article. And given some other comments, I'm not alone. And yes, my word choice is relevant to the theme I'm discussing.
- willyt 6y ago
  I also agree that plastic is probably bad, but it's everywhere though and I've kind of resigned myself to the fact that it's become unavoidable. With respect to the article, it's an opinion piece and clearly marked as such. I'm not sure if this is a difference between US and UK papers, but in papers that still try to have some journalistic integrity in the UK there is, by convention, a difference between articles marked as 'Opinion' and news articles. The writers of opinion pieces are invited to submit articles on a one-off basis and are not necessarily journalists, they can be anyone and the articles they write are expected to hold an opinion so when you read one the understanding is that it will be biased towards a particular viewpoint. So the Guardian frequently has opinion pieces written by politicians (generally centrist but from the left and right of politics), activists, scientists, etc. These opinion pieces typically lean leftish on average, because its The Guardian, but individually they are not always left leaning. Do newspapers from other countries have a similar convention?
pc86 6y ago
If you have a financial incentive to do anything, your motives should be investigated if not outright suspect, even if they're objectively good. If everything is above board there's nothing to lose. But hand-waving it away doesn't help anyone except people with motives that appear good at first blush but are in fact not.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
He's learned 'a lot' but cherry-picked to prosecute. That's the difference between a biased actor, and a scientist who is supposed to be neutral and use experiments to distinguish between bias and reality.

by gmac 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

manquer 6y ago

There is difference between journalist talking to such an expert and writing the article, than the expert writing himself.experise does not mean he will be unbiased. You need a neutral perspective, same reason dev should be his own qa, or lawyer should not represent himself or a doctor not operate on family. While they can be objective and unbiased, it is right to question that, when the author has a vested interest in the matter as it easy to loose perspective.

fsloth 6y ago
Bias is not bad in sciences. It means the person is dedicated to his/her cause. For example, if you read through nobel price winners you find one very strong common factor. They were always emotionally involved in their work. Humans are emotional beings, not robots. If you want to have high performance, you want the performer to care deeply about his work. Biases should not be hidden though! I think that is the pathology people generally confuse with bias. Bias is a positive thing, hiding it is not. This does not contradict the above examples (lawyer, doctor, dev) but rather highlights there are different situations and no single approach to bias suffices. Besides, journalism is almost never unbiased. If you don't know the bias of the writer, it means the writer has a hidden agenda. Much better to flaunt the agenda, then.
- 7952 6y ago
  And our reaction is entirely coloured by bias and our own baseline understanding of the world. We expect higher quality argument from the side we are less comfortable with. And happily accept less proof on concepts that we are already familiar with. No one worries about bias when you are talking about pistgres.
collyw 6y ago
The Guardian is far from neutral. It's one of the most biased publications out there in my opinion.
- meloentje 6y ago
  Ah right. There's only two categories right? Publications you agree with: unbiased. Publications you don't agree with: biased.
bloat 6y ago
Note that the article is in the Opinion section of the newspaper. You shouldn't expect unbiased reporting here, it's the designated space for editorializing and well... opinions.

_cs2017_ 6y ago

> it penalises expertise and commitment When weighing people's opinions, expertise should be rewarded but commitment should be penalized. Committed people have a psychological need to prove themselves right and to discount contrary evidence. This is due to a combination of conscious and subconscious factors: enhancing one's social and career standing, making oneself feel better about the invested effort, etc. Among people who spent a decade or two arguing in favor of a certain theory, not many would be comfortable admitting they were wrong all along. There is a period of time when someone is already an expert but not yet committed to any particular belief. This is an excellent time to listen to their opinions. Unfortunately, this period is usually quite short for most people. Sometimes (as in this case), the commitment is quite obvious; at other times, it may be hard to detect it.

danieldbird 6y ago
Here here. Well said.
academi 6y ago
By this argument, few CEOs, salespeople, or advertising execs should ever have been heard. Also, in the history of science and philosophy, you’ll find that the majority of those whose work significantly advanced human knowledge were committed to their work and to the promotion of their ideas.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  > By this argument, few CEOs, salespeople, or advertising execs should ever have been heard. You say this as if it was a negative. Besides the history of science is very fuzzy, and complex enough that "commitment" by itself is too vague a term. Also, science is not homogeneous enough for any kind of it to be a positive on every field.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
  > By this argument, few CEOs, salespeople, or advertising execs should ever have been heard. That is absolutely correct.

eclat 6y ago

According to Hans Rosling, his research shows activists have a less accurate picture than the general public on the issue they dedicate their activism to.

howlgarnish 6y ago
Interestingly enough, Hans Rosling's own activism revolved around overturning accepted wisdom, so what happens when you apply this result to his own work?
- pas 6y ago
  Parent comment is a bit too general. His claim was about world health and development, not all activists in all areas. (As far as I know. If there's a study about all activists, please correct me.)

AntiImperialis2 6y ago

Committed experts are basically activists, they are people with grandiose delusions who think that particular thing is so important that they committed their lives to it. Our bodies are full of "toxins". For example, our bones are made up of calcium and phosphorus. Yet, if you eat a pinch of powdered phosphorus, you die.

NoOneNew 6y ago

Here's the problem the commentor is probably getting at: people won't believe the narrative. It's not hard to convince me that any type of plastic is bad. I dont use plastic containers for food. Only wood, metal and glass are in my kitchen when it contacts food. I dont even like plastic for anything else. If I can opt for something that's not made of plastic, I'd rather pay a premium than have it all if I can (obviously what I'm holding to type this flies in my belief's face, but right now the anti-plastic war I wage is a hill I will die on and it'll be a brutal death). Yet, after reading the article, I have doubts on what he's claiming. Journalism used to be emotional only at very key, important points. The deadpan nature allowed for disciplined emotional tones to have extreme, nearly atomic impact on a subject. That used to move people. Now, everything is a life or death struggle. For fucks sake, figuring out what bathroom to use was and still is a "heated debate". 99% of people have zero issues figuring this out. Less than 1% are arguing yet everyone has to feel like THIS is what will collapse society if we dont fix it. The constant barrage of outlandish "passionate" claims to "save the world" along with the deep dark shady underworld of business, after a while, "yup, whatever". While I will always err on the side of "fuck plastic", I will also admit that I'm a casualty of the current "journalism" climate of ever increasing sense of doom around every corner. I dont believe the author even though I philosophically should knee jerk to being a cheerleader all because of the tone of the article. And given some other comments, I'm not alone. And yes, my word choice is relevant to the theme I'm discussing.

willyt 6y ago
I also agree that plastic is probably bad, but it's everywhere though and I've kind of resigned myself to the fact that it's become unavoidable. With respect to the article, it's an opinion piece and clearly marked as such. I'm not sure if this is a difference between US and UK papers, but in papers that still try to have some journalistic integrity in the UK there is, by convention, a difference between articles marked as 'Opinion' and news articles. The writers of opinion pieces are invited to submit articles on a one-off basis and are not necessarily journalists, they can be anyone and the articles they write are expected to hold an opinion so when you read one the understanding is that it will be biased towards a particular viewpoint. So the Guardian frequently has opinion pieces written by politicians (generally centrist but from the left and right of politics), activists, scientists, etc. These opinion pieces typically lean leftish on average, because its The Guardian, but individually they are not always left leaning. Do newspapers from other countries have a similar convention?

pc86 6y ago

If you have a financial incentive to do anything, your motives should be investigated if not outright suspect, even if they're objectively good. If everything is above board there's nothing to lose. But hand-waving it away doesn't help anyone except people with motives that appear good at first blush but are in fact not.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

He's learned 'a lot' but cherry-picked to prosecute. That's the difference between a biased actor, and a scientist who is supposed to be neutral and use experiments to distinguish between bias and reality.