3 ms·
>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
by 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 agoNope 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.