Academic expertise and democracy

[Ominous Gamer]

I don't understand your point. The general reader of the Huffington Post is going to be more informed and less likely to be a lunatic than the general reader/listener of Youtube and 4chan. Heck, as much as I don't like the comments on the story I posted, they're miles above anything you'll see from youtube, 4chan, or Yahoo posters.

You understand how this is circular right? youtubers/4channers are stupid because they leave stupid comments, they leave stupid comments because they are stupid users
The internet, by large, is border free. Someone isn't only a 4chan user, or a youtube user, or a HuffingtonPost user. They can be all, or they can be none (I use all of them). The context of the information means nothing, its the anonymous group think that you are getting hung up on. Being anonymous removes a lot of social and cultural boundaries, but the group think is a problem too. You should look into studies that show how comments vary widely based on if the commenter is made aware of previous comments, even if they are completely fabricated or falsely representing the information.

[Loki]

You understand how this is circular right? youtubers/4channers are stupid because they leave stupid comments, they leave stupid comments because they are stupid users
The internet, by large, is border free. Someone isn't only a 4chan user, or a youtube user, or a HuffingtonPost user. They can be all, or they can be none. The context of the information means nothing, its the anonymous group think that you are getting hung up on. Being anonymous removes a lot of social and cultural boundaries, but the group think is a problem too. You should look into studies that show how comments vary widely based on if the commenter is made aware of previous comments, even if they are completely fabricated or falsely representing the information.

I don't think you know what an average is. Someone posting on both youtube and Huffington Post doesn't mean that the average "quality" of the audience in both places is the same.

[GGT]

Loki's not concerned with new media as a user-tool, or how it's used. He'd rather be apoplectic about experts being misunderstood for their expertise. Or something.

[Ominous Gamer]

I don't think you know what an average is. Someone posting on both youtube and Huffington Post doesn't mean that the average "quality" of the audience in both places is the same.

Totally misunderstanding the point Loki. Doesn't matter what kind of quality you're looking for, there is no way for you to justify what you are expecting from one site compared to another. To say the users should be more enlightened at one location over another makes no sense what so ever. To say that certain locations are incapable of producing meaningful information, based solely on the site context, also makes no sense. Especially since the sites could very well share the same user base. This is why I asked you these questions in reply 27, and you were unable to answer them.

[Nessus]

So you reject the arguments about the nature of online posting in favour of what, exactly? That because Huffington is a left-wing haven the people are inane, as shown by their posting? They are exempt from the usual "internet makes you stupid" rules of JewTube et cetera because ostensibly they are educated and well-read, and hence their stupid comments as a whole can be taken to prove the stupidity of a faction you find distasteful?

[Loki]

Totally misunderstanding the point Loki. Doesn't matter what kind of quality you're looking for, there is no way for you to justify what you are expecting from one site compared to another. To say the users should be more enlightened at one location over another makes no sense what so ever. To say that certain locations are incapable of producing meaningful information, based solely on the site context, also makes no sense. Especially since the sites could very well share the same user base. This is why I asked you these questions in reply 27, and you were unable to answer them.

Can I take it that you believe the average level of a readership's knowledge and intelligence at the Economist is the same as that same level at Yahoo news?

So you reject the arguments about the nature of online posting in favour of what, exactly? That because Huffington is a left-wing haven the people are inane, as shown by their posting? They are exempt from the usual "internet makes you stupid" rules of JewTube et cetera because ostensibly they are educated and well-read, and hence their stupid comments as a whole can be taken to prove the stupidity of a faction you find distasteful?

No, the argument is that the people who read the Huffington Post have to try a bit harder to find information than people who get it from Yahoo, which means that they A) should care more about obtaining said information, and B) should be more likely to already have a higher level of knowledge. The Huffingon Post was just a random example. I could have as easily used the Times of London.

[Ominous Gamer]

Can I take it that you believe the average level of a readership's knowledge and intelligence at the Economist is the same as that same level at Yahoo news?

are you claiming that you can prove this without using posted comments, since that would put you back into your first circular problem?
hint: Alexa and similar site classification systems won't help you here.

No, the argument is that the people who read the Huffington Post have to try a bit harder to find information than people who get it from Yahoo,

Web 2.0 and the social "revolution" has completely left you behind. This goes back to the group think problem.

[Loki]

are you claiming that you can prove this without using posted comments, since that would put you back into your first circular problem?
hint: Alexa and similar site classification systems won't help you here.

I could, in theory anyway. All I'd have to do is to take a national poll, and ask people their income, education, and other proxies for knowledge, and then ask them whether they read news from the Economist and Yahoo news. Alternately, I can ask those same people general knowledge questions and then ask them which news sources they use. Obviously I have neither the time nor the money to do that.

[Nessus]

No, the argument is that the people who read the Huffington Post have to try a bit harder to find information than people who get it from Yahoo, which means that they A) should care more about obtaining said information, and B) should be more likely to already have a higher level of knowledge. The Huffingon Post was just a random example. I could have as easily used the Times of London.

Congratulations, Doctor, you found that people are dumb on the Internet. Here's your PhD!

[Loki]

Congratulations, Doctor, you found that people are dumb on the Internet. Here's your PhD!

Do we have reason to believe people off the internet are any smarter?

[Ominous Gamer]

No, the argument is that the people who read the Huffington Post have to try a bit harder to find information than people who get it from Yahoo,

Web 2.0 and the social "revolution" has completely left you behind. This goes back to the group think problem.

All I'd have to do is to take a national poll, and ask people their income, education, and other proxies for knowledge, and then ask them whether they read news from the Economist and Yahoo news.

and you honestly think you would find enough of a sample thats only ever read one over the other?

Do we have reason to believe people off the internet are any smarter?

again, its the internet's concept of anonymity. People online don't have to act smart, stay within their safe zones, or be honest. I sure as hell hope for your students that you're not as big an asshole in real life as you are online.

Damnit, now we're treating the internet as if its not real life.

[GGT]

Can I take it that you believe the average level of a readership's knowledge and intelligence at the Economist is the same as that same level at Yahoo news?

That's bullshit. My 15 year old kid reads the Economist. He could post comments, too. But I suspect they have a tighter reign on poster comments than other places.

No, the argument is that the people who read the Huffington Post have to try a bit harder to find information than people who get it from Yahoo, which means that they A) should care more about obtaining said information, and B) should be more likely to already have a higher level of knowledge. The Huffingon Post was just a random example. I could have as easily used the Times of London.

Right, now Huffington is just a "random example". At the outset, it looked like a good example of what you wanted to bitch about (stupid lay people in a democracy not understanding experts' expertise), until you can't defend your bias.

Your thesis is baloney.

[Nessus]

Do we have reason to believe people off the internet are any smarter?

Did I anywhere said we did? Is this somehow an argument for using them up as fuck-muppets? They're not smart, ergo they can be used and abused and then discarded as we choose? We as in the people who have money.

[GGT]

It's a leftist source. Most leftists believe that the non-Western world isn't that much different to the West, so there's little ideological reason to attack the author's conclusions in that regard (in fact, virtually none of the people there attack the author for that reason).

I can't recall reading a single well-thought piece about civil war in a mainstream source before finding this. So no, there really isn't that much information out there. One just has to differentiate well-written, well-researched information from opinionated, uncorroborated bullshit. And there's the fact that a vast majority of the people who read that piece and commented on it simply didn't get the author's point.

Let's backtrack here, Loki. Try re-reading your second post in your own damn thread. You're smart enough to figure this out.....

[Loki]

Did I anywhere said we did? Is this somehow an argument for using them up as fuck-muppets? They're not smart, ergo they can be used and abused and then discarded as we choose? We as in the people who have money.

No, it's an argument about how the heck we can get people to become informed when presenting them with easy to understand expert analysis isn't sufficient.

[Ominous Gamer]

Still the same problem here Loki. You're saying that internet users are not to your level of being informed because of their comments. The same comments that you're using to show that the readers are not being informed. You're stuck in a circle that you're not going to break out of of until you understand that online comment systems are not a representation of a site's target audience.

[GGT]

The point of this thread is that people weren't willing to accept an expert analysis even though it didn't strictly go against their preconceptions.

Do we have reason to believe people off the internet are any smarter?

No, it's an argument about how the heck we can get people to become informed when presenting them with easy to understand expert analysis isn't sufficient.

Yet, you dismiss our comments about the nature of media content, with its inconsistencies?

You can't criticize readers of media (that contains hyperlinks to experts and user-comments), in order to criticize the general public. Then turn around and ask how the general public can be more informed by the same mass-media formats.

You can't have it both ways.

[LittleFuzzy]

Unless someone is trolling, why would someone write an opinion that wasn't theirs? Again, I'm not saying that these people are strictly representative of the Huffington Post readers, but given the nature of the story (i.e. not something that would offend leftist sensibilities and not on a topic that most Americans care about), I would expect a decent level of discourse from at least some of the posters. It's one thing to say that these people as a group aren't representative of all readers of that website. But it's quite another to say that virtually none of the readers reflect the general audience.

What is the motivation for commenting on a professional piece? In an area where anyone can comment and comments are, at a minimum, semi-anonymous? Mostly, it's the same motivation that's behind "1st post" behavior. It's about getting the perception of attention.

[Loki]

What is the motivation for commenting on a professional piece? In an area where anyone can comment and comments are, at a minimum, semi-anonymous? Mostly, it's the same motivation that's behind "1st post" behavior. It's about getting the perception of attention.

And why not try to get attention by providing a constructive rebuttal to the original article or to post something that others might learn something from? Check out the comments at the Economist. About half are actually fairly decent. Couldn't find a single decent one here...

[LittleFuzzy]

And why not try to get attention by providing a constructive rebuttal or the original article or to post something that others might learn something from?

Because it's not going to get that attention coming after a more polished and professionally written piece. It does happen, sure, but not all that often.

[Loki]

Because it's not going to get that attention coming after a more polished and professionally written piece. It does happen, sure, but not all that often.

See the edit above about the Economist. It is possible to get semi-intelligent responses in the same kind of format. But it seems that unless one deals with the cream of the crop, that simply doesn't happen. I just don't get the point of writing some incoherent rant or talking about the bias of Harvard. Or perhaps I underestimate the amount of GGTs in the world.

[GGT]

See the edit above about the Economist. It is possible to get semi-intelligent responses in the same kind of format. But it seems that unless one deals with the cream of the crop, that simply doesn't happen. I just don't get the point of writing some incoherent rant or talking about the bias of Harvard.

That's why you also don't "get" the point of this forum, either. If we'd been limited by your editorial review (as in your blog) this place would be just as dead.

[Loki]

Instead, you and Being fill it with so much spam and absurdity that you discourage existing members (let alone new ones) from posting.

[Being]

Instead, you and Being fill it with so much spam and absurdity that you discourage existing members (let alone new ones) from posting.

I've only posted in this thread 3 times...well, 4 now...and it all addressed your answer to your own question.

[GGT]

Instead, you and Being fill it with so much spam and absurdity that you discourage existing members (let alone new ones) from posting.

Oh shit! Really? OMG I am so sorry! It's because of me (and Being) that we don't have more members posting? I (we) discourage people from posting because of spam and absurdity? And that's why we don't have new members, TOO?

Gosh, that sounds really bad. Practically apocalyptic!

Whatever shall we do? Help us Dr. Loki!

[GGT]

See the edit above about the Economist. It is possible to get semi-intelligent responses in the same kind of format. But it seems that unless one deals with the cream of the crop, that simply doesn't happen. I just don't get the point of writing some incoherent rant or talking about the bias of Harvard. Or perhaps I underestimate the amount of GGTs in the world.

Nice quick edit there, buckaroo. Did you notice my comment about my little boy reading the Economist? Anyone can comment there, ya know. The Economist is running heavy ads, pop ups and pop unders. They want reader traffic, but do a pretty good job of censoring reader comments. They have a reputation to uphold, etc.

I maintain that your OP thesis is baloney. Rather ironic, since I'm the least internet savvy person here, but even I can see what you're missing in the big picture here.

[LittleFuzzy]

See the edit above about the Economist. It is possible to get semi-intelligent responses in the same kind of format. But it seems that unless one deals with the cream of the crop, that simply doesn't happen. I just don't get the point of writing some incoherent rant or talking about the bias of Harvard. Or perhaps I underestimate the amount of GGTs in the world.

The comments printed. . . in the magazine? The ones the editors select?

[GGT]

The comments printed. . . in the magazine? The ones the editors select?

You are being very delicate with Loki. Showing him much more leeway than you've shown other members here.

[GGT]

By the by, and mixing threads together....while watching Jack Nicholson movies.....

"Expert testimony" in court rooms has a strange yet pertinent history. The more times an "expert" is called to testify, the greater his reputation as being an "expert" is fortified. Pretty soon, we have expert testimony that isn't really using expertise. They may not be the true "experts" in a field. New DNA technology confirms this. When pitted against older conventional forensic scientists that may go to great lengths to analyze blood splatter or bullet patterns, or "identity" that convicted people erroneously......none of that can compete with DNA alleles that is exculpatory.

Plenty of people have been arrested, tried and convicted, by "expert testimony". Juries have weighed the "expert testimony", and put people on death row. Sometimes on "expert analysis" of things like finger prints. Juries are instructed to consider "expert testimony", but only the expertise presented. Experts can be wrong. Expertise can be manipulated.

Loki, I (again) maintain that your OP is baloney. If Academic expertise is to be taken seriously, wouldn't it be most important in our judicial system? Aren't you whining on the wrong end of things?

[GGT]

Part 2:

Academic Expertise shouldn't be a given pass, just because someone has initials behind their name. Expertise should be a fluid and dynamic thing. Lay people ought to be able to challenge "experts", and be presented with arguments beyond "we're the experts, and that's what we say, so shut the fuck up". Common sense doesn't make the lay person superior, either. But when push comes to shove, it's the expert that needs to explain themselves to the lay person.

The world has changed. Regular people are empowered to ask physicians about chemotherapy or radiation or mutilating surgeries. Regular people have been saying for decades that governments can't continue deficit spending. Regular people have been saying that wars in Iraq or Afghanistan won't solve anything. Regular people have questioned the financial industry for pushing loans they can't afford. Regular people recognize our dependency on fossil fuels and petroleum products are giving money to our "enemies". Regular people have been the voice of reason, when the "experts" have tried to say otherwise.

The experts say the regular person doesn't understand macro or micro economics, let alone politics. They say we'll vote against our own best interests. Then they wonder why the hell our voting looks like ousting incumbents or the status quo every voting cycle, hungry for "change". Or why expert analysis misses the boat.

What we're doing isn't working. Regular people know this intuitively. Experts try to sound like they know which theoretical framework will work, if only regular people would understand, but they haven't been too successful. Not in the US, anyway. Not in economics or political science or social justice.

The experts have led us into unwinnable wars, massive debts, and national social decline. The experts have a long way to go, to redeem their credibility and trust to the regular person.