4 ms·

> Did you understood that one method was better than the other? No, I'm accusing the authors of implying this. > To me it's just different way of using Wikipe

> Did you understood that one method was better than the other? No, I'm accusing the authors of implying this. > To me it's just different way of using Wikipedia. I'm more of a busybody myself, but I can do hyperfocused dive ('hunter', which to me seems more positive) on specific subjects when needed. I often go out of Wikipedia in that case though (I use it to find links mostly) Same. Check this out: > The researchers cite three main hypotheses driving the associations between information-seeking approaches and equality. > > “One is that it’s possible that countries that have more inequality also have more patriarchal structures of oppression that are constraining the knowledge production approaches to be more Hunter-like,” says Bassett. “Countries that have greater equality, in contrast, are open to a diversity of ideas, and therefore a diversity of ways that we’re engaging in the world. This is more like the busybody—the one that’s moving between ideas in a very open-minded way.” https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/studying-wikipedia-browsing-habits-learn-how-people-learn https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/studying-wikipedia-browsing... Terms like "equality" and "diversity" are afforded to the busybodies while "patriarchy", "oppression" and "constrained" are given to the hunters. I think that this conveys plenty about which method is seen as more virtuous than the other. The same style of thought is given in the initial quote that I pulled: > In countries with higher education levels and greater gender equality, people browsed more like busybodies. In countries with lower scores on these variables, people browsed like hunters. Bassett hypothesizes that “in countries that have more structures of oppression or patriarchal forces, there may be a constraining of knowledge production that pushes people more toward this hyperfocus.” I reckon that we can agree that "gender equality" is considered a virtue in Liberal thought. I don't want to get all worked up and (further?) expose my own ignorance, but my own hunch that this that this study while interesting on the surfaced is backed by a kind of cultural "woo" science for scientific Americans. I earnestly pity the actual scientists who may try to decipher those multi-graph figures of swirly things and pretty colors.

orwin 2y ago
Ok i seen, i think i disagree mainly on the fact that the author implied anywhere than browsing like "hunter" (which is often a positive word) was worse than browsing like a "busybody" (which has a negative connotation, hence the miscomprehension). To me the sentence you seems to hang on was more descriptive than anything. On its face, browsing like a hunter is something i do when i do performative searches, for my memoire or something, and browsing like a busybody is what i do by idleness, just because i like to read interesting stuff randomly, it should be logic that in countries with high level of social control, the first one is rewarded and the second one viewed as useless, thus performed less. Here i used "social control" because i think it's more neutral and to see if you agree, but social control is performed by structures of oppression: i'm merely using more neutral words, but i'm saying the same thing.
- tolerance 2y ago
  Ballett's words are descriptive. But when you describe things you are making an assessment of something and alluding to some sort of truth, no? Forget about the face of the study for a moment. There are plenty of cute faces to gawk at in this world and to feel drawn to and to find familiarity with and to be contented by. I'm hanging on to the passages that I'm referring to because to me they show a glimpse into the soul of the study. | On its face, browsing like a hunter is something | i do when i do performative searches, for my | memoire or something, and browsing like a busybody | is what i do by idleness, just because i like to read | interesting stuff randomly, it should be logic | that in countries with high level of social control, | the first one is rewarded and the second one | viewed as useless, thus performed On what grounds do you view this as logical? I'll ask you again, have you checked out the full study? Is it at all apparent that what you aver is plausible within reason past the allure of the sharp and swirly graphs and squiggly-symbol-bearing equations the authors employ to support the claims that I've clung to? Is the inverse that in "less oppressive" countries, the first method is deemed useless and the second is rewarded? If so, maybe you're on to something similar to our colleague throaway54: | You could easily speculate the opposite; | that countries with more structures | of oppression or I patriarchal forces | have greater levels of focus! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42668540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42668540 I can get down with that too. Where are you from by the way? If we want to address the topic at the surface (there's different ways to browse the Web depending on the need and interest) then that's cool. But if we are going to...ahem...critically theorize* the societal implications that one method draws in relation to the other and posit them as "logical", then in a world that is wanting for focus, I am on the side of focus. And if that puts me on the side of the supposed "structures of oppression", then I'm forced to challenge what you mean by that, because I'd go as far as to say that in the present age, your oppressors would much rather you dillydallying, busy-bodying, meddling* online, from pillar to post, instead of hunting for truths indigenous to the nature of you existence. I'd go even further to say that the fact that "hunting" is nominally positive and "busybody" is negative is not a matter of miscomprehension, it's a subversion of their intending meaning, it's a performative posture of "resistance" and "rebellion" to authority as desired by the authors (namely, Bassett and her brother). Or, I'd withdraw all the way and revert back to the study at it's face value: People use the internet in different ways and to pass one way off as more virtuous than the other and to posit societal implications in association to these virtues as contrived by the ideals of the author only makes for an interesting argument in theory, it's science fiction and when scrutinized against reality (for those that feel and believe that there is indeed A Reality®), it amounts to nonsense as far as the argument in association to pedigree of the arguers is concerned and If the study isn't going to do us the service of outlining what countries are more inclined to a given method of browsing in a sensible manner, all that's left is to speculate, so it becomes less about the "science" than it is about signaling to and affirming the beliefs of those who would already submit to the "Woo" or a "speculative fiction" masked as noble inquisition. I have a hunch that when people associate postmodernism as an ideology with critical theory as a practice, this is the type of stuff that they're referring to. They both share a focus and apprehension toward power, authority and "oppression", although I reckon that the traditional ontology of the Frankfurt School was perhaps pegged to more traditional conceptions of truth and reality and postmodernists, well, appear to be ambivalent, if not outright antagonistic toward tradition, truth and reality...

orwin 2y ago

Ok i seen, i think i disagree mainly on the fact that the author implied anywhere than browsing like "hunter" (which is often a positive word) was worse than browsing like a "busybody" (which has a negative connotation, hence the miscomprehension). To me the sentence you seems to hang on was more descriptive than anything. On its face, browsing like a hunter is something i do when i do performative searches, for my memoire or something, and browsing like a busybody is what i do by idleness, just because i like to read interesting stuff randomly, it should be logic that in countries with high level of social control, the first one is rewarded and the second one viewed as useless, thus performed less. Here i used "social control" because i think it's more neutral and to see if you agree, but social control is performed by structures of oppression: i'm merely using more neutral words, but i'm saying the same thing.

tolerance 2y ago
Ballett's words are descriptive. But when you describe things you are making an assessment of something and alluding to some sort of truth, no? Forget about the face of the study for a moment. There are plenty of cute faces to gawk at in this world and to feel drawn to and to find familiarity with and to be contented by. I'm hanging on to the passages that I'm referring to because to me they show a glimpse into the soul of the study. | On its face, browsing like a hunter is something | i do when i do performative searches, for my | memoire or something, and browsing like a busybody | is what i do by idleness, just because i like to read | interesting stuff randomly, it should be logic | that in countries with high level of social control, | the first one is rewarded and the second one | viewed as useless, thus performed On what grounds do you view this as logical? I'll ask you again, have you checked out the full study? Is it at all apparent that what you aver is plausible within reason past the allure of the sharp and swirly graphs and squiggly-symbol-bearing equations the authors employ to support the claims that I've clung to? Is the inverse that in "less oppressive" countries, the first method is deemed useless and the second is rewarded? If so, maybe you're on to something similar to our colleague throaway54: | You could easily speculate the opposite; | that countries with more structures | of oppression or I patriarchal forces | have greater levels of focus! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42668540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42668540 I can get down with that too. Where are you from by the way? If we want to address the topic at the surface (there's different ways to browse the Web depending on the need and interest) then that's cool. But if we are going to...ahem...critically theorize* the societal implications that one method draws in relation to the other and posit them as "logical", then in a world that is wanting for focus, I am on the side of focus. And if that puts me on the side of the supposed "structures of oppression", then I'm forced to challenge what you mean by that, because I'd go as far as to say that in the present age, your oppressors would much rather you dillydallying, busy-bodying, meddling* online, from pillar to post, instead of hunting for truths indigenous to the nature of you existence. I'd go even further to say that the fact that "hunting" is nominally positive and "busybody" is negative is not a matter of miscomprehension, it's a subversion of their intending meaning, it's a performative posture of "resistance" and "rebellion" to authority as desired by the authors (namely, Bassett and her brother). Or, I'd withdraw all the way and revert back to the study at it's face value: People use the internet in different ways and to pass one way off as more virtuous than the other and to posit societal implications in association to these virtues as contrived by the ideals of the author only makes for an interesting argument in theory, it's science fiction and when scrutinized against reality (for those that feel and believe that there is indeed A Reality®), it amounts to nonsense as far as the argument in association to pedigree of the arguers is concerned and If the study isn't going to do us the service of outlining what countries are more inclined to a given method of browsing in a sensible manner, all that's left is to speculate, so it becomes less about the "science" than it is about signaling to and affirming the beliefs of those who would already submit to the "Woo" or a "speculative fiction" masked as noble inquisition. I have a hunch that when people associate postmodernism as an ideology with critical theory as a practice, this is the type of stuff that they're referring to. They both share a focus and apprehension toward power, authority and "oppression", although I reckon that the traditional ontology of the Frankfurt School was perhaps pegged to more traditional conceptions of truth and reality and postmodernists, well, appear to be ambivalent, if not outright antagonistic toward tradition, truth and reality...