3 ms·

> Is it typical for "thought leaders" to be paid to dishonestly push certain ideas? Null hypothesis would imply we should treat them no different than other in

by yifanl 3y ago

> Is it typical for "thought leaders" to be paid to dishonestly push certain ideas? Null hypothesis would imply we should treat them no different than other influencers. Unless you've evidence otherwise?

tivert 3y ago
> Null hypothesis would imply we should treat them no different than other influencers. Unless you've evidence otherwise? So what exactly is your definition of a "thought leader?" How do you treat them "no different than other influencers" without closing yourself off to current ideas? IMHO, social media "influencers" should be totally ignored, but the people active in public life should be engaged with, if skeptically.
- ElevenLathe 3y ago
  Why should we "engage" with people who are "active in public life"? What does this mean?
- yifanl 3y ago
  I guess, the broad definition is just someone who's good at selling their thoughts to other people. Maybe it's because they have a popular podcast, or maybe they were a former head of state. There's no general reason I should inherently trust these people aren't being biased by third parties.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    In my career, it's a term I would never apply to myself and I roll my eyes a bit if someone else used it to describe me. In general, I'd say it's "supposed" to mean someone who is smart about understanding and anticipating current and future trends. But I find it a bit cringey in general.
48864w6ui 3y ago
There's a slope between: "X paid me to promote Y" "My employer, X, doesn't mind if I write about Y on company time" "Our socioeconomic system X happens to mean I have way more free time and energy to promote on of its bases, Y, than other people do" but is it a qualitative slope or just quantitative?
- ghaff 3y ago
  Qualitative pretty much. I've never been willing to say/write something I believed to be manifestly untrue just because an employer wanted me too. But I've certainly avoided certain topics that I might have been willing to address more candidly under different circumstances.

by yifanl 3y ago

tivert 3y ago

> Null hypothesis would imply we should treat them no different than other influencers. Unless you've evidence otherwise? So what exactly is your definition of a "thought leader?" How do you treat them "no different than other influencers" without closing yourself off to current ideas? IMHO, social media "influencers" should be totally ignored, but the people active in public life should be engaged with, if skeptically.

ElevenLathe 3y ago
Why should we "engage" with people who are "active in public life"? What does this mean?
yifanl 3y ago
I guess, the broad definition is just someone who's good at selling their thoughts to other people. Maybe it's because they have a popular podcast, or maybe they were a former head of state. There's no general reason I should inherently trust these people aren't being biased by third parties.
- ghaff 3y ago
  In my career, it's a term I would never apply to myself and I roll my eyes a bit if someone else used it to describe me. In general, I'd say it's "supposed" to mean someone who is smart about understanding and anticipating current and future trends. But I find it a bit cringey in general.

48864w6ui 3y ago

There's a slope between: "X paid me to promote Y" "My employer, X, doesn't mind if I write about Y on company time" "Our socioeconomic system X happens to mean I have way more free time and energy to promote on of its bases, Y, than other people do" but is it a qualitative slope or just quantitative?

ghaff 3y ago
Qualitative pretty much. I've never been willing to say/write something I believed to be manifestly untrue just because an employer wanted me too. But I've certainly avoided certain topics that I might have been willing to address more candidly under different circumstances.