3 ms·

In Adler’s (How to Read a Book) terms, I think lots of folks don’t naturally learn to do his “third reading”[1] simultaneously with the first two readings (or m

In Adler’s (How to Read a Book) terms, I think lots of folks don’t naturally learn to do his “third reading”[1] simultaneously with the first two readings (or maybe at all?), and tend to read a book only once, or to read it more than once but doing the “same” reading each time. That plus some assumptions that the social proof of a book getting recommended by, say, Bill Gates and being a bestseller means it must not just be a whole bunch of lazy crap that sometimes contradicts its own citations, can explain a lot of things slipping by a person that, viewed with hindsight, were pretty sketchy. Certain social science or liberal arts programs are pretty good at, if nothing else, pushing students to get better at that “third reading” and developing a heuristic, automatic sense for when a piece is behaving in a maybe-dodgy way, but I think a lot of other programs aren’t, so even educated people, at least those who don’t just naturally pick the skill up young, may take a rougher road to it, if they ever pick it up. (Yes, I’m aware that my calling out some social science training as a good way to hone that skill is funny, given how much junk science, pop and otherwise, centers around the social sciences) [1] Adler’s three readings are: 1) coming to terms—that is, seeking an understanding of the basic assumptions, definitions, context, et c, the author is operating under, and the basic thrust or topic or goal of the work; 2) Understanding the author’s argument, message, points and so forth; 3) critical reading—is the message any good? Does it hold together? Are the definitions and premises well-considered, useful, and applied consistently? Does that passage there look a bit iffy, is perhaps worded like the author’s trying to get away with something, and maybe needs a closer look? If such-and-such part crumbles on closer examination or consultation of other sources, what of the rest is salvageable, if any?

DiscourseFan 2y ago
The junk science from social sciences is a combination of students/researchers who both lack the ability to read critically and are given work that requires it fundamentally. Any real critical sociologist is going to be far more scientific than most scientists when it comes to their analysis since they have both the rigour of their method and the eye of self-reflexive objectivity, but you don't always get those people. Mostly not, most academics are just fairly mediocre people who were smart enough to get through their classes, kissed enough ass, are seemingly competent and lucky to land a good position.
- watwut 2y ago
  Basically none of the books upper thread talks about was written by an actual scientist trained in the area they write about. They were written by popular people, either not scientists or writing outside of their expertise.
  - Handprint4469 2y ago
    If only. The replication crisis means a lot of scientists have written books about their area based on bad research. Not only they were trained in their area, some of them even invented it. I'll give you one concrete example: "Presence: Bringing Your Boldest Self to Your Biggest Challenges", by Amy Cuddy. That book was based on the (now completely falsified) theory of "Power posing"[0], which the author published peer-reviewed papers on. It's a neat little grift: publish a couple of papers, get yourself a TED talk, sign a book deal, and suddenly you're getting hired to teach leadership courses to clueless MBAs and give conference talks to bored executives. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_posing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_posing

DiscourseFan 2y ago

The junk science from social sciences is a combination of students/researchers who both lack the ability to read critically and are given work that requires it fundamentally. Any real critical sociologist is going to be far more scientific than most scientists when it comes to their analysis since they have both the rigour of their method and the eye of self-reflexive objectivity, but you don't always get those people. Mostly not, most academics are just fairly mediocre people who were smart enough to get through their classes, kissed enough ass, are seemingly competent and lucky to land a good position.

watwut 2y ago
Basically none of the books upper thread talks about was written by an actual scientist trained in the area they write about. They were written by popular people, either not scientists or writing outside of their expertise.
- Handprint4469 2y ago
  If only. The replication crisis means a lot of scientists have written books about their area based on bad research. Not only they were trained in their area, some of them even invented it. I'll give you one concrete example: "Presence: Bringing Your Boldest Self to Your Biggest Challenges", by Amy Cuddy. That book was based on the (now completely falsified) theory of "Power posing"[0], which the author published peer-reviewed papers on. It's a neat little grift: publish a couple of papers, get yourself a TED talk, sign a book deal, and suddenly you're getting hired to teach leadership courses to clueless MBAs and give conference talks to bored executives. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_posing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_posing