6 ms·

I think that speaks more towards the author than higher education. Definitely a tangent, but attributing that attitude to higher education is like someone attr

by dartos 3y ago

I think that speaks more towards the author than higher education. Definitely a tangent, but attributing that attitude to higher education is like someone attributing a doctor saving their life to an act of god. Like yeah if you squint I guess that’s true. My experience with higher education has been that of administrators taking advantage of my naivety for profit, elitism towards those not in academia, and dismissal of any ideas that wouldn’t directly result in a grant or a good headline. I wouldn’t really say that the author’s “mettle” is a result of the same environment.

sanderjd 3y ago
Yeah I dunno... I mean, a lot of these things are true, and they all are big problems, but also, in my experience, academics (at least in the sciences) do actually know how to read and understand research, which is an extremely difficult and useful skill.
- hyperthesis 3y ago
  Yeah, I think "mettle" here is like a sword and shield and the ability to use them (read and understand scientific literature, and able to do so, self-directed, for years). But whether a person does use them, and for what, is entirely due to the person themselves.
- j16sdiz 3y ago
  Isn't that just what PhD do? I meant going through piles of papers - most of them bring more new questions than answers - and stay sane
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is like the primary skill that people learn to get a PhD. It's true that people can learn it without getting a PhD, but hardly anyone does, because it kind of sucks and if you're doing it you may as well do it with the guidance of an advisor and get a credential at the end.
- dartos 3y ago
  That’s okay, I know. Anyone with the wherewithal can learn to “read and understand research” it’s not a magical power bestowed upon the few who receive recognition from some long standing bloated institution. Attributing the drive and work of an individual to such an institution is weird and elitist. I should note that if said institution paid for, assembled the team, and provided resources, then that institution obviously deserves credit.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    I think this is a misunderstanding of how stuff works. I agree that anyone (or at least a large percentage of people) can learn to do it and it isn't a magical power. But it's far more common for academics to be able to do it because that's what academics learn to do. It's a large focus of the training. It isn't elitist to say "car mechanics are good at reading and acting on the information in car engine manuals", that's just what car mechanics are trained to do and get consistent practice at doing.
    - dartos 3y ago
      I don’t think there’s any misunderstanding. Your comment seems in line with what I said and what I believe. One can teach themselves how to be a mechanic and pass the ASE. Most go through some course to learn the trade, of course. It’s more structured that way and many find it easier. I’ve never had my auto repair shop attribute their mechanic’s skill to where they learned to be a mechanic. I never turned down a mechanic bc they didn’t go to the brown or Harvard of car repair. On the other hand I’m an expert in my field, but I’ve been turned down from at least 1 job specifically because I didn’t graduate from Brown university. (It was a backend job for the now-defunct Delivery Dudes) OP attributed the mettle of the author to higher education and academia, which I think is weird and elitist. Attributing success or ability to an institution fosters that kind of weird elitism.
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        Fair enough.
- cdogl 3y ago
  Many academics have these skills; whether the higher education system is effective at teaching them and delivers an experience worth the significant cost to students (or here in Australia, also the publics).
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    I would argue that it's clearly the most effective system at training people to do this. It's fine to imagine (and try to create) alternative systems that would work better. But there isn't one now. Constructive criticism is good. But what I mostly see (and often do myself) is just grousing.
    - dartos 3y ago
      Yeah you’re not wrong at all. I’m not saying “down with academia” or anything like that. Just that attributing the work and work ethic of an individual to the institution of academia is weird and fosters and propagates elitism.
autoexec 3y ago
Lots of other parents driven to look for answers about what happened to their child, but being far less educated on how to read and understand academic papers, ended up "doing their own research" and became antivaxxers. There's a lot to be said for having an education that enables you to evaluate scientific literature effectively.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  I was in a private discussion group during the pandemic that "did their own research" First off, this was genuinely valuable during the first few months. Gigantic medical institutions were moving at a glacial pace and were making proclamations literally months behind the state of the research. In order to conserve masks, propaganda was put out that masks were only effective if you were a medical professional, and the most common way I saw this rationalised was that the general public was simply too stupid to wear a mask in a sanitary way. So I proceeded to wear a mask in a sanitary way. Then after a few months mask stocks started to pile up so propagandists THEN pronounced that more science was conducted and masks were actually effective for everybody! That positive outcome aside, what other people saw was that the younger people got, the lower the risks of COVID, and the higher the risks of getting vaccinated. In fact, it seemed from the numbers (This is for the earlier strains of COVID), that for certain populations (young people who lived like hermits, in other words, hacker news readers) it could be on a selfish individual basis, be irrational to get the COVID vaccine. The risk from myocarditis could actually outweigh the risk of COVID itself. It was however, always in the collective interest for as many people to get vaccinated as possible, to reduce the transmission of COVID, and reduce the consequent strain on medical resources and the direct/indirect deaths this caused. Public health institutions did not get into this nuance, because it wasn't in the collective interest, so they just told everybody the vaccine was good for you. I proceeded to get vaccinated, and the main person I held discussions with did not, after both drawing the exact same scientific conclusion. Not every anti-vaccer was stupid, some of them were just massive civil libertarians. What I saw from people who DIDN'T do their own research is that they were UNIFORMLY misinformed because they tended to either believe institutions who would lie to them whenever it served their purposes (2 weeks to flatten the curve!), or believed whatever podcaster told them about Ivermectin.

by dartos 3y ago

sanderjd 3y ago

Yeah I dunno... I mean, a lot of these things are true, and they all are big problems, but also, in my experience, academics (at least in the sciences) do actually know how to read and understand research, which is an extremely difficult and useful skill.

hyperthesis 3y ago
Yeah, I think "mettle" here is like a sword and shield and the ability to use them (read and understand scientific literature, and able to do so, self-directed, for years). But whether a person does use them, and for what, is entirely due to the person themselves.
j16sdiz 3y ago
Isn't that just what PhD do? I meant going through piles of papers - most of them bring more new questions than answers - and stay sane
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is like the primary skill that people learn to get a PhD. It's true that people can learn it without getting a PhD, but hardly anyone does, because it kind of sucks and if you're doing it you may as well do it with the guidance of an advisor and get a credential at the end.
dartos 3y ago
That’s okay, I know. Anyone with the wherewithal can learn to “read and understand research” it’s not a magical power bestowed upon the few who receive recognition from some long standing bloated institution. Attributing the drive and work of an individual to such an institution is weird and elitist. I should note that if said institution paid for, assembled the team, and provided resources, then that institution obviously deserves credit.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  I think this is a misunderstanding of how stuff works. I agree that anyone (or at least a large percentage of people) can learn to do it and it isn't a magical power. But it's far more common for academics to be able to do it because that's what academics learn to do. It's a large focus of the training. It isn't elitist to say "car mechanics are good at reading and acting on the information in car engine manuals", that's just what car mechanics are trained to do and get consistent practice at doing.
  - dartos 3y ago
    I don’t think there’s any misunderstanding. Your comment seems in line with what I said and what I believe. One can teach themselves how to be a mechanic and pass the ASE. Most go through some course to learn the trade, of course. It’s more structured that way and many find it easier. I’ve never had my auto repair shop attribute their mechanic’s skill to where they learned to be a mechanic. I never turned down a mechanic bc they didn’t go to the brown or Harvard of car repair. On the other hand I’m an expert in my field, but I’ve been turned down from at least 1 job specifically because I didn’t graduate from Brown university. (It was a backend job for the now-defunct Delivery Dudes) OP attributed the mettle of the author to higher education and academia, which I think is weird and elitist. Attributing success or ability to an institution fosters that kind of weird elitism.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      Fair enough.
cdogl 3y ago
Many academics have these skills; whether the higher education system is effective at teaching them and delivers an experience worth the significant cost to students (or here in Australia, also the publics).
- sanderjd 3y ago
  I would argue that it's clearly the most effective system at training people to do this. It's fine to imagine (and try to create) alternative systems that would work better. But there isn't one now. Constructive criticism is good. But what I mostly see (and often do myself) is just grousing.
  - dartos 3y ago
    Yeah you’re not wrong at all. I’m not saying “down with academia” or anything like that. Just that attributing the work and work ethic of an individual to the institution of academia is weird and fosters and propagates elitism.

autoexec 3y ago

Lots of other parents driven to look for answers about what happened to their child, but being far less educated on how to read and understand academic papers, ended up "doing their own research" and became antivaxxers. There's a lot to be said for having an education that enables you to evaluate scientific literature effectively.

faeriechangling 3y ago
I was in a private discussion group during the pandemic that "did their own research" First off, this was genuinely valuable during the first few months. Gigantic medical institutions were moving at a glacial pace and were making proclamations literally months behind the state of the research. In order to conserve masks, propaganda was put out that masks were only effective if you were a medical professional, and the most common way I saw this rationalised was that the general public was simply too stupid to wear a mask in a sanitary way. So I proceeded to wear a mask in a sanitary way. Then after a few months mask stocks started to pile up so propagandists THEN pronounced that more science was conducted and masks were actually effective for everybody! That positive outcome aside, what other people saw was that the younger people got, the lower the risks of COVID, and the higher the risks of getting vaccinated. In fact, it seemed from the numbers (This is for the earlier strains of COVID), that for certain populations (young people who lived like hermits, in other words, hacker news readers) it could be on a selfish individual basis, be irrational to get the COVID vaccine. The risk from myocarditis could actually outweigh the risk of COVID itself. It was however, always in the collective interest for as many people to get vaccinated as possible, to reduce the transmission of COVID, and reduce the consequent strain on medical resources and the direct/indirect deaths this caused. Public health institutions did not get into this nuance, because it wasn't in the collective interest, so they just told everybody the vaccine was good for you. I proceeded to get vaccinated, and the main person I held discussions with did not, after both drawing the exact same scientific conclusion. Not every anti-vaccer was stupid, some of them were just massive civil libertarians. What I saw from people who DIDN'T do their own research is that they were UNIFORMLY misinformed because they tended to either believe institutions who would lie to them whenever it served their purposes (2 weeks to flatten the curve!), or believed whatever podcaster told them about Ivermectin.