4 ms·

I find exactly this attitude to be annoying about writers. They may write well on a subject but that doesn't mean they know anything. Much the same way pilots

by LanceH 3y ago

I find exactly this attitude to be annoying about writers. They may write well on a subject but that doesn't mean they know anything. Much the same way pilots complain about doctors who get into flying -- the doctor might be the most educated pilot, but that's not what good flying is about.

jpatt 3y ago
That's kind of their job, though, right? Couldn't you have the same complaint about doctors, pilots, or engineers who try to write? Writing isn't what they do. Just seems like there will never be a Scotsman capable of appeasing this standard.
- bmitc 3y ago
  Lots of people write. The author of the linked post is a journalist. His job is to journal things, if I can be loose with language, and not just to be a writer. The arrogance that comes through his statement is pretty thick, and I think, of all people, I would like journalists to be as unbiased as possible. And arrogance seems like it could leas to bias quite easily by allowing assumptions to creep in.
karaterobot 3y ago
I thought he was just saying he doesn't have an excuse for not being able to communicate what's happened or how he's feeling about it in words, since at the very least it's his job, if not his purpose in life. I didn't interpret him as saying he knew everything as a result of that, or that he had special access to the truth.
- mbg721 3y ago
  Yeah, this is along the lines of "If I could just say a few words, I'd be a better public speaker."
javajosh 3y ago
>They may write well on a subject but that doesn't mean they know anything. There's a bit to unpack here. Being articulate is orthogonal to being skilled. That is, it's widely understood to be harder to explain what you do than to actually do, often by an order-of-magnitude. Articulation can itself be considered a skill, but I think it's practical to ignore that in a conversation like this - with the sole exception of when articulation takes precedent over skill, as is the case with bullshitters and sophists. This is an error mode, similar to how any valuable quality can be overdone and loose it's healthy relationship to other qualities.
ChainOfFools 3y ago
Wait till you meet a doctor, such as the one I met last night, who gets into anti-vaxx conspiracies, as in wholly subscribing to them. An actual board certified, practicing doctor with a diploma from USC. Working, of all places, in _hospice_. I don't even mean the high-minded ones that pretend to scientific justification, but it's almost as if doctor mode switches off and q anon conspiracist switches on like a light. I hope this guy was bullshiting me, and I really didn't want to drill down further under the setting and circumstances, but the venue being a Beverly Hills entertainment biz mixer it's entirely likely that he was not.
- tiffanyg 3y ago
  The issues of "psychology" (/ "sociology") are ubiquitous with human beings (and many other animals, arguably). Partly borne of "heuristics" and other hacks / optimizations that make for a species quick and efficient enough to survive, they permeate everything human, no matter how much our minds might tell us they don't, in general. It took me years to learn, through repeated demonstrations, just how many illusions and delusions permeate my own every day existence. In fact, this is really why it can be so incredibly helpful to know people you can talk to and trust who have different points of view and can help nudge thinking back towards a certain level of, say, "goodness". And, it's a major factor in the very dark side of "social media", as has been well-documented - including by Facebook itself, mostly internally. The "tribe heuristic" can easily supplant years or decades worth of training on, essentially, "critical thinking" and "how to test / discover / 'know' things", such that you end up with absolutely jarring inconsistencies in people. I.e., the doctor (MD or DO or etc.) who has an entirely separate "Mr. Hyde" persona peddling a kind of witchcraft that is apparently grounded in philosophies entirely at odds with the "doctor compartment" in their lives. It's a hazard for all - and, that bit, at least, can be of use to others. The "warning" inherent in seeing this sort of thing directly. But, well, personally, I try to stick to small inconsistencies that are unlikely to have major consequences, especially for other people.
- fwungy 3y ago
  Are you a doctor or scientist? What is your credential to critique his view. Perhaps the questions about vaccine safety and efficacy have some basis in the empirical experiences of practitioners and recipients? The human immune system is vastly complicated and not even close to being fully understood by science. Is it unreasonable to want intelligent, unbiased answers to reasonable questions, or is that sacrilege "because we already know"? A fundamental of science is repetition of experiments. This is how we know and verify what we know: it will be true consistently with repetition. If vaccines are as safe and effective as claimed the sellers and proponents should have no problem defending them. In fact so doing would bolster their position, if they are being honest.

by LanceH 3y ago

jpatt 3y ago

That's kind of their job, though, right? Couldn't you have the same complaint about doctors, pilots, or engineers who try to write? Writing isn't what they do. Just seems like there will never be a Scotsman capable of appeasing this standard.

bmitc 3y ago
Lots of people write. The author of the linked post is a journalist. His job is to journal things, if I can be loose with language, and not just to be a writer. The arrogance that comes through his statement is pretty thick, and I think, of all people, I would like journalists to be as unbiased as possible. And arrogance seems like it could leas to bias quite easily by allowing assumptions to creep in.

karaterobot 3y ago

I thought he was just saying he doesn't have an excuse for not being able to communicate what's happened or how he's feeling about it in words, since at the very least it's his job, if not his purpose in life. I didn't interpret him as saying he knew everything as a result of that, or that he had special access to the truth.

mbg721 3y ago
Yeah, this is along the lines of "If I could just say a few words, I'd be a better public speaker."

javajosh 3y ago

>They may write well on a subject but that doesn't mean they know anything. There's a bit to unpack here. Being articulate is orthogonal to being skilled. That is, it's widely understood to be harder to explain what you do than to actually do, often by an order-of-magnitude. Articulation can itself be considered a skill, but I think it's practical to ignore that in a conversation like this - with the sole exception of when articulation takes precedent over skill, as is the case with bullshitters and sophists. This is an error mode, similar to how any valuable quality can be overdone and loose it's healthy relationship to other qualities.

ChainOfFools 3y ago

Wait till you meet a doctor, such as the one I met last night, who gets into anti-vaxx conspiracies, as in wholly subscribing to them. An actual board certified, practicing doctor with a diploma from USC. Working, of all places, in _hospice_. I don't even mean the high-minded ones that pretend to scientific justification, but it's almost as if doctor mode switches off and q anon conspiracist switches on like a light. I hope this guy was bullshiting me, and I really didn't want to drill down further under the setting and circumstances, but the venue being a Beverly Hills entertainment biz mixer it's entirely likely that he was not.

tiffanyg 3y ago
The issues of "psychology" (/ "sociology") are ubiquitous with human beings (and many other animals, arguably). Partly borne of "heuristics" and other hacks / optimizations that make for a species quick and efficient enough to survive, they permeate everything human, no matter how much our minds might tell us they don't, in general. It took me years to learn, through repeated demonstrations, just how many illusions and delusions permeate my own every day existence. In fact, this is really why it can be so incredibly helpful to know people you can talk to and trust who have different points of view and can help nudge thinking back towards a certain level of, say, "goodness". And, it's a major factor in the very dark side of "social media", as has been well-documented - including by Facebook itself, mostly internally. The "tribe heuristic" can easily supplant years or decades worth of training on, essentially, "critical thinking" and "how to test / discover / 'know' things", such that you end up with absolutely jarring inconsistencies in people. I.e., the doctor (MD or DO or etc.) who has an entirely separate "Mr. Hyde" persona peddling a kind of witchcraft that is apparently grounded in philosophies entirely at odds with the "doctor compartment" in their lives. It's a hazard for all - and, that bit, at least, can be of use to others. The "warning" inherent in seeing this sort of thing directly. But, well, personally, I try to stick to small inconsistencies that are unlikely to have major consequences, especially for other people.
fwungy 3y ago
Are you a doctor or scientist? What is your credential to critique his view. Perhaps the questions about vaccine safety and efficacy have some basis in the empirical experiences of practitioners and recipients? The human immune system is vastly complicated and not even close to being fully understood by science. Is it unreasonable to want intelligent, unbiased answers to reasonable questions, or is that sacrilege "because we already know"? A fundamental of science is repetition of experiments. This is how we know and verify what we know: it will be true consistently with repetition. If vaccines are as safe and effective as claimed the sellers and proponents should have no problem defending them. In fact so doing would bolster their position, if they are being honest.