5 ms·

Maybe the bar is just set super low? The guy started following US politics in 2020 and now he’s a savant. And isn’t this just normal twitter use? I know I’ve w

Maybe the bar is just set super low? The guy started following US politics in 2020 and now he’s a savant. And isn’t this just normal twitter use? I know I’ve woken up and entered a debate on Twitter and then misspent a morning researching and going back and forth on Twitter.

vidarh 3y ago
It's "normal" Twitter use, but the identity of the average Twitter user does not end up being the speculation of Washington insiders because of their insight.
romwell 3y ago
>Maybe the bar is just set super low? Or maybe it isn't, and this person is a rare savant? The article presents a very clear case that it's the latter, but I guess it's much easier for some to dismiss an entire field as inept than to accept that there's a 20-year-old savant somewhere in the UK. >And isn’t this just normal twitter use? From the article: no.
- account-5 3y ago
  I might be wrong but I think the OP was critising US politics rather than the UK student.
  - romwell 3y ago
    The critique is based upon an implicit, unstated assumption that the UK student is not extraordinary. The conclusion that "the bar is set very low" follows from that. Note that utltmately, knowing the intricacies of procedures and protocols to find loopholes to abuse in the letter of the law has not been a component of politics until very recently.
    - account-5 3y ago
      That's the thing about implicit things though. You read it as an implicit critique of a UK student, I read it as an implicit critique of US politics being so dumb that a UK student can become an expert in a few short years. Until the OP comments about the actual intention behind their statement we'll never know. This is a whole different discussion though, especially now-a-days when you can get in trouble for "implicit" this and that irrespective of intention. I personally don't think it's a recent thing for politicians to be looking for loopholes, pretty sure that's one of the main jobs of any politician.
      - romwell 3y ago
        >I read it as an implicit critique of US politics being so dumb that a UK student can become an expert in a few short years. We both read the same thing. The thing is, a UK student can't become an expert in a few short years. This particular one can, because he's a savant. It's not a critique of the student, it's just devaluing his extraordinary achievement. If you start with the assumption that the UK student has done something extraordinary, you can't conclude that the Hill staffers are dumb. To reach that conclusion, you need to assume that Ringwiss didn't do anything beyond what a very motivated person with a strong interest in subject matter could do. But that's far from being the case.
        jbjbjbjb 3y ago
        Nope it was a critique of how could a person, even a brilliant person, on their own, in their spare time, become the most knowledgeable entity on these very important matters. Matters that have wall to wall coverage on the news, not just in the US but globally. Where there are all types of researcher, lawyers, politicians, think tanks, journalists, academics, and working in organised teams. So many many qualified and organised eyes are on this. The article even says the lawmakers don’t know what powers they have! I kinda think these are things they should know. For what it’s worth, I think he might be a brilliant mind, but I also think it’s easy to look brilliant if you learn a bit about an arcane area. My main point was have we made a very important part of democracy arcane when it really shouldn’t be.

vidarh 3y ago

It's "normal" Twitter use, but the identity of the average Twitter user does not end up being the speculation of Washington insiders because of their insight.

romwell 3y ago

>Maybe the bar is just set super low? Or maybe it isn't, and this person is a rare savant? The article presents a very clear case that it's the latter, but I guess it's much easier for some to dismiss an entire field as inept than to accept that there's a 20-year-old savant somewhere in the UK. >And isn’t this just normal twitter use? From the article: no.

account-5 3y ago
I might be wrong but I think the OP was critising US politics rather than the UK student.
- romwell 3y ago
  The critique is based upon an implicit, unstated assumption that the UK student is not extraordinary. The conclusion that "the bar is set very low" follows from that. Note that utltmately, knowing the intricacies of procedures and protocols to find loopholes to abuse in the letter of the law has not been a component of politics until very recently.
  - account-5 3y ago
    That's the thing about implicit things though. You read it as an implicit critique of a UK student, I read it as an implicit critique of US politics being so dumb that a UK student can become an expert in a few short years. Until the OP comments about the actual intention behind their statement we'll never know. This is a whole different discussion though, especially now-a-days when you can get in trouble for "implicit" this and that irrespective of intention. I personally don't think it's a recent thing for politicians to be looking for loopholes, pretty sure that's one of the main jobs of any politician.
    - romwell 3y ago
      >I read it as an implicit critique of US politics being so dumb that a UK student can become an expert in a few short years. We both read the same thing. The thing is, a UK student can't become an expert in a few short years. This particular one can, because he's a savant. It's not a critique of the student, it's just devaluing his extraordinary achievement. If you start with the assumption that the UK student has done something extraordinary, you can't conclude that the Hill staffers are dumb. To reach that conclusion, you need to assume that Ringwiss didn't do anything beyond what a very motivated person with a strong interest in subject matter could do. But that's far from being the case.
      - jbjbjbjb 3y ago
        Nope it was a critique of how could a person, even a brilliant person, on their own, in their spare time, become the most knowledgeable entity on these very important matters. Matters that have wall to wall coverage on the news, not just in the US but globally. Where there are all types of researcher, lawyers, politicians, think tanks, journalists, academics, and working in organised teams. So many many qualified and organised eyes are on this. The article even says the lawmakers don’t know what powers they have! I kinda think these are things they should know. For what it’s worth, I think he might be a brilliant mind, but I also think it’s easy to look brilliant if you learn a bit about an arcane area. My main point was have we made a very important part of democracy arcane when it really shouldn’t be.