3 ms·

> And, generally speaking, anyone who you could hope to convince of your point can smell this from a mile off. The kind of folks who can "smell" parroted point

> And, generally speaking, anyone who you could hope to convince of your point can smell this from a mile off. The kind of folks who can "smell" parroted points are reacting emotionally and viscerally, yet seem to think it is others that cannot make cohesive/rational arguments. More and more I see that there is no hope to trying to convince these people of anything - they've already made up their minds about these concepts and are not interested in having their minds changed.

AussieWog93 6y ago
Choosing not to engage with someone you don't know well because their argument has a "smell" is perfectly rational - it's no different to choosing not to merge a large commit from a random stranger because of "code smell". In both cases, a significant amount of time is required to fully evaluate the other person's contribution, and you also have strong (heuristic) information telling you that the contribution is likely to be of extremely low quality. (In the case of parroted buzzwords, specifically, it's likely that they'll state a point you've already heard dozens of times before and lack the ability to provide anything more than that even when directly poked).
- deanCommie 6y ago
  Why are you so certain about the validity of your heuristics? There is a significant difference between the example in your analogy. If you are a maintainer of a code base, and you are looking at a merge commit from a stranger, you are the authority. The domain is the one you are the expert in, and you are encountering strangers of dubious credibility whose claims you have to evaluate drawing upon your experience. That's valid. But, judging from your example and the forum on which we are speaking, your domain is NOT sociology, psychology, philosophy, or politics (and whatever intersection of those fields leads to analysis of racism/gender discrimination etc). Maybe you took some classes in it. Maybe you even have a minor. But it's probably not your profession or area of study. Yet you are willing to dismiss academics who've chosen to spend years of their life studying these concepts, analyzing root causes, and coming up with conclusions. How does that work?
  - AussieWog93 6y ago
    I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting you should dismiss academics offhand because they use certain words. However, when you hear people using academic buzzwords in a typical social situation (either online or offline), it's almost always the case that they're not an expert in the topic but instead just trying to show off how smart/woke/edgy they are by using some of the same language that the "thought leaders" do.
    - deanCommie 6y ago
      Okay, but I feel like the same question applies. Why do you assume that you know more about these concepts (in social situations) than others you encounter do. But actually that assumes incompetence, you're actually suggesting malice if you say they are just trying to show off how woke/smart they are. If they are incompetent, why do you assume malice? And why does using the buzzwords suggest incompetence if the language is the same as the academics. How can you know these people aren't well educated on the subject. Remember, your thesis was that you ignore these people outright when they use these buzzwords. But you also admit academics use the same ones.

AussieWog93 6y ago

Choosing not to engage with someone you don't know well because their argument has a "smell" is perfectly rational - it's no different to choosing not to merge a large commit from a random stranger because of "code smell". In both cases, a significant amount of time is required to fully evaluate the other person's contribution, and you also have strong (heuristic) information telling you that the contribution is likely to be of extremely low quality. (In the case of parroted buzzwords, specifically, it's likely that they'll state a point you've already heard dozens of times before and lack the ability to provide anything more than that even when directly poked).

deanCommie 6y ago
Why are you so certain about the validity of your heuristics? There is a significant difference between the example in your analogy. If you are a maintainer of a code base, and you are looking at a merge commit from a stranger, you are the authority. The domain is the one you are the expert in, and you are encountering strangers of dubious credibility whose claims you have to evaluate drawing upon your experience. That's valid. But, judging from your example and the forum on which we are speaking, your domain is NOT sociology, psychology, philosophy, or politics (and whatever intersection of those fields leads to analysis of racism/gender discrimination etc). Maybe you took some classes in it. Maybe you even have a minor. But it's probably not your profession or area of study. Yet you are willing to dismiss academics who've chosen to spend years of their life studying these concepts, analyzing root causes, and coming up with conclusions. How does that work?
- AussieWog93 6y ago
  I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting you should dismiss academics offhand because they use certain words. However, when you hear people using academic buzzwords in a typical social situation (either online or offline), it's almost always the case that they're not an expert in the topic but instead just trying to show off how smart/woke/edgy they are by using some of the same language that the "thought leaders" do.
  - deanCommie 6y ago
    Okay, but I feel like the same question applies. Why do you assume that you know more about these concepts (in social situations) than others you encounter do. But actually that assumes incompetence, you're actually suggesting malice if you say they are just trying to show off how woke/smart they are. If they are incompetent, why do you assume malice? And why does using the buzzwords suggest incompetence if the language is the same as the academics. How can you know these people aren't well educated on the subject. Remember, your thesis was that you ignore these people outright when they use these buzzwords. But you also admit academics use the same ones.