4 ms·

The world through rose-colored blinders

leed25d 14y ago
"THE WORLD THROUGH ROSE-COLORED BLINDERS: A NEW MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR HOW SOCIETY BECOMES POLARIZED" I have a problem with the mixed metaphor in the title. You do not look through blinders, they are opaque. They are meant to block the line of sight, their color is immaterial but it is usually black. Glasses on, the other hand are translucent and may be tinted. The idiom of 'rose-colored glasses' is supposed to suggest that if someone looks at --or [another idiom] thinks about, that is to say looks at with the mind's eye-- something with rose-colored glasses then they think that it is more pleasant than it really is. Normally I wouldn't be as picky as this, but the linked reference is supposed to be a scholarly work from a leading educational institution. I mean we might have to tolerate something like this from a proprietary "University" like The University of Phoenix or Capella University or ITT Technical Institute, but from Stanford? Come on, give me a break, OK? Get your ducks in a row --that's an idiom, too.
- pranav99 14y ago
  (I am a co-author on the paper). Your criticism of the title is valid. But re: your line "the linked reference is supposed to be a scholarly work from a leading educational institution" Note that the bad title belongs to an article written for the popular media (and written by non-experts). It is not the title of the "scholarly work" that the article describes. The scholarly work (http://stanford.edu/~ppd/papers/pnas-polarization.pdf http://stanford.edu/~ppd/papers/pnas-polarization.pdf) has a pretty dry title that no one in the popular media would use. I am not condoning the mistake, just pointing that it is less egregious than what you seem to be implying.
  - leed25d 14y ago
    I guess I was a little confused about the title of your work, Pranav, as opposed to the title of the article about your work. I still think the the author of the news article should hang his head in shame. (Actually, think that your title has a rather nice ring to it)

"THE WORLD THROUGH ROSE-COLORED BLINDERS: A NEW MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR HOW SOCIETY BECOMES POLARIZED" I have a problem with the mixed metaphor in the title. You do not look through blinders, they are opaque. They are meant to block the line of sight, their color is immaterial but it is usually black. Glasses on, the other hand are translucent and may be tinted. The idiom of 'rose-colored glasses' is supposed to suggest that if someone looks at --or [another idiom] thinks about, that is to say looks at with the mind's eye-- something with rose-colored glasses then they think that it is more pleasant than it really is. Normally I wouldn't be as picky as this, but the linked reference is supposed to be a scholarly work from a leading educational institution. I mean we might have to tolerate something like this from a proprietary "University" like The University of Phoenix or Capella University or ITT Technical Institute, but from Stanford? Come on, give me a break, OK? Get your ducks in a row --that's an idiom, too.

pranav99 14y ago
(I am a co-author on the paper). Your criticism of the title is valid. But re: your line "the linked reference is supposed to be a scholarly work from a leading educational institution" Note that the bad title belongs to an article written for the popular media (and written by non-experts). It is not the title of the "scholarly work" that the article describes. The scholarly work (http://stanford.edu/~ppd/papers/pnas-polarization.pdf http://stanford.edu/~ppd/papers/pnas-polarization.pdf) has a pretty dry title that no one in the popular media would use. I am not condoning the mistake, just pointing that it is less egregious than what you seem to be implying.
- leed25d 14y ago
  I guess I was a little confused about the title of your work, Pranav, as opposed to the title of the article about your work. I still think the the author of the news article should hang his head in shame. (Actually, think that your title has a rather nice ring to it)