Academic expertise and democracy

[']['ear]

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.

I thought the point was that people are smart enough to realize that many "experts" in the social sciences are just pushing their personal opinion, because you can't "prove" jack shit.

[Loki]

Can't prove what portion of civil wars involve a strong religious component? Really? Thanks for providing another example who refuses to accept perfectly good information just because it goes against their preconceptions (in this case, that people can actually know more about politics than he is).

[']['ear]

Can't prove what portion of civil wars involve a strong religious component? Really? Thanks for providing another example who refuses to accept perfectly good information just because it goes against their preconceptions (in this case, that people can actually know more about politics than he is).

You can claim to know these things, but you almost certainly don't. At best you get a very rough estimate, and can say stuff like "using the same set of assumptions" to make comparisons. That's extremely limited, and really practical only for academic exercises. Your inability to grasp the limits of the pseudosciences in non-controlled situations proves that you don't actually know what science is. But we already knew that from your previous abuses of science, usually in the name of some agenda.

[Aimless]

Never mind the large amount of crappy health-related info people are constantly exposed to

[Loki]

You can claim to know these things, but you almost certainly don't. At best you get a very rough estimate, and can say stuff like "using the same set of assumptions" to make comparisons. That's extremely limited, and really practical only for academic exercises. Your inability to grasp the limits of the pseudosciences in non-controlled situations proves that you don't actually know what science is. But we already knew that from your previous abuses of science, usually in the name of some agenda.

For a scientist, you don't seem to know the difference between data and analysis. One doesn't have to use any methods to determine what percentage of civil wars had a large religious component. All it takes it gathering data on all civil wars and determining what they were fought over. Analysis would entail providing an explanation for why so few civil wars are over religion.

[']['ear]

For a scientist, you don't seem to know the difference between data and analysis. One doesn't have to use any methods to determine what percentage of civil wars had a large religious component. All it takes it gathering data on all civil wars and determining what they were fought over. Analysis would entail providing an explanation for why so few civil wars are over religion.

Non-trivial and subjective.

[Aimless]

... wait, what?

[Loki]

... wait, what?

We all know that determining whether a patient improves after taking a drug is neither non-trivial nor subjective.

[']['ear]

Heh. Rebuttal fail.

[Aimless]

Non-trivial and subjective.

This is communication fail, please fix at once.

[']['ear]

What, you think it is trivial and objective to determine what portion of a civil war's cause was religious? Pull the other one.

[Aimless]

I certainly don't think it's trivial, although it may be more trivial for those who work in such fields than it is for either of us. I don't think it's objective in the absolute philosophical sense, but mosts things aren't. Dismissing a field out of hand for not being absolutely objective is ridiculous not to mention hypocritical

[']['ear]

I certainly don't think it's trivial, although it may be more trivial for those who work in such fields than it is for either of us. I don't think it's objective in the absolute philosophical sense, but mosts things aren't. Dismissing a field out of hand for not being absolutely objective is ridiculous not to mention hypocritical

Ah, but I was merely saying that Loki's claims were nowhere near as certain as he insinuates. It is certainly not dismissing a field. But it is saying that the strength of their claims is dubious, especially given the nature of the "measurements" he cites here. Let's look more closely:
"All it takes it gathering data on all civil wars and determining what they were fought over."

Loki acts as if this were trivial and obvious. I'd argue that it's almost impossible to do so with any certitude, certainly not without using many profound assumptions. "Analysis would entail providing an explanation for why so few civil wars are over religion." Sure, assuming your original data "measurements" weren't based on a sizable hill of assumptions.

Loki tries to tout this crap as science. Well, we're not measuring tumor diameter or number of dies survived after initiation of treatment. I'm well aware that such science is not fool proof, but at least it isn't more assumption than not, eh?

I'll finish by noting that I have a lot more sympathy with social "science" that actually uses controls. A lot of Psychology, or Micro Economics. But only a few areas of PoliSci fall into those areas. Most of them are more conjecture than anything else, which takes us right back to philosophers arguing about the number of angels, pins. Worth learning about ideas, but let's not tout them around as Fact, eh? That's the sin that Loki repeatedly commits wrt PoliSci and Economics, and I will continue to call BS on him until the cows come home.

[Loki]

Have you read any poli sci article from a major journal from the last 10 years? Yes or no?

Edit: Here's a sample issue of the second main journal in poli sci (though it focuses more on American politics than on other sub-fields): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...sue-1/issuetoc

Ignore the two political theory articles, as they're meant to be philosophical. Now tell me which of the articles is all about "conjecture".

[']['ear]

Can't even see straight--dental surgery this morning.

[Loki]

Those aren't fun. Have a nice juicy steak when the anesthesia wears off.

[']['ear]

Too much pain. Gum grafts.

[Loki]

That doesn't sound very nice. Dentistry is the profession of wannabe war criminals I'm afraid.

[Dreadnaught]

November 29, 2010
Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt

By JULIE ZHUO
Palo Alto, Calif.

THERE you are, peacefully reading an article or watching a video on the Internet. You finish, find it thought-provoking, and scroll down to the comments section to see what other people thought. And there, lurking among dozens of well-intentioned opinions, is a troll.

“How much longer is the media going to milk this beyond tired story?” “These guys are frauds.” “Your idiocy is disturbing.” “We’re just trying to make the world a better place one brainwashed, ignorant idiot at a time.” These are the trollish comments, all from anonymous sources, that you could have found after reading a CNN article on the rescue of the Chilean miners.

Trolling, defined as the act of posting inflammatory, derogatory or provocative messages in public forums, is a problem as old as the Internet itself, although its roots go much farther back. Even in the fourth century B.C., Plato touched upon the subject of anonymity and morality in his parable of the ring of Gyges.

That mythical ring gave its owner the power of invisibility, and Plato observed that even a habitually just man who possessed such a ring would become a thief, knowing that he couldn’t be caught. Morality, Plato argues, comes from full disclosure; without accountability for our actions we would all behave unjustly.

This certainly seems to be true for the anonymous trolls today. After Alexis Pilkington, a 17-year-old Long Island girl, committed suicide earlier this year, trolls descended on her online tribute page to post pictures of nooses, references to hangings and other hateful comments. A better-known example involves Nicole Catsouras, an 18-year-old who died in a car crash in California in 2006. Photographs of her badly disfigured body were posted on the Internet, where anonymous trolls set up fake tribute pages and in some cases e-mailed the photos to her parents with subject lines like “Hey, Daddy, I’m still alive.”

Psychological research has proven again and again that anonymity increases unethical behavior. Road rage bubbles up in the relative anonymity of one’s car. And in the online world, which can offer total anonymity, the effect is even more pronounced. People — even ordinary, good people — often change their behavior in radical ways. There’s even a term for it: the online disinhibition effect.

Many forums and online communities are looking for ways to strike back. Back in February, Engadget, a popular technology review blog, shut down its commenting system for a few days after it received a barrage of trollish comments on its iPad coverage.

Many victims are turning to legislation. All 50 states now have stalking, bullying or harassment laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication. Last year, Liskula Cohen, a former model, persuaded a New York judge to require Google to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger who she felt had defamed her, and she has now filed a suit against the blogger. Last month, another former model, Carla Franklin, persuaded a judge to force YouTube to reveal the identity of a troll who made a disparaging comment about her on the video-sharing site.

But the law by itself cannot do enough to disarm the Internet’s trolls. Content providers, social networking platforms and community sites must also do their part by rethinking the systems they have in place for user commentary so as to discourage — or disallow — anonymity. Reuters, for example, announced that it would start to block anonymous comments and require users to register with their names and e-mail addresses in an effort to curb “uncivil behavior.”

Some may argue that denying Internet users the ability to post anonymously is a breach of their privacy and freedom of expression. But until the age of the Internet, anonymity was a rare thing. When someone spoke in public, his audience would naturally be able to see who was talking.

Others point out that there’s no way to truly rid the Internet of anonymity. After all, names and e-mail addresses can be faked. And in any case many commenters write things that are rude or inflammatory under their real names.

But raising barriers to posting bad comments is still a smart first step. Well-designed commenting systems should also aim to highlight thoughtful and valuable opinions while letting trollish ones sink into oblivion.

The technology blog Gizmodo is trying an audition system for new commenters, under which their first few comments would be approved by a moderator or a trusted commenter to ensure quality before anybody else could see them. After a successful audition, commenters can freely post. If over time they impress other trusted commenters with their contributions, they’d be promoted to trusted commenters, too, and their comments would henceforth be featured.

Disqus, a comments platform for bloggers, has experimented with allowing users to rate one another’s comments and feed those ratings into a global reputation system called Clout. Moderators can use a commenter’s Clout score to “help separate top commenters from trolls.”

At Facebook, where I’ve worked on the design of the public commenting widget, the approach is to try to replicate real-world social norms by emphasizing the human qualities of conversation. People’s faces, real names and brief biographies (“John Doe from Lexington”) are placed next to their public comments, to establish a baseline of responsibility.

Facebook also encourages you to share your comments with your friends. Though you’re free to opt out, the knowledge that what you say may be seen by the people you know is a big deterrent to trollish behavior.

This kind of social pressure works because, at the end of the day, most trolls wouldn’t have the gall to say to another person’s face half the things they anonymously post on the Internet.

Instead of waiting around for human nature to change, let’s start to rein in bad behavior by promoting accountability. Content providers, stop allowing anonymous comments. Moderate your comments and forums. Look into using comment services to improve the quality of engagement on your site. Ask your users to report trolls and call them out for polluting the conversation.

In slowly lifting the veil of anonymity, perhaps we can see the troll not as the frightening monster of lore, but as what we all really are: human.

Julie Zhuo is a product design manager at Facebook.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30zhuo.html

[Ominous Gamer]

The "raising barriers" line is what I've been saying all along. Making it more difficult for trolls to be heard doesn't make it so that they don't exist. I read this article earlier and it came off like a regular forum rant, right up to the last line, talk about being on the frontlines of a problem

[Nessus]

Nope, still not joining Facebook

[Dreadnaught]

Aw cmon, it'll be fun!

[Aimless]

The "raising barriers" line is what I've been saying all along. Making it more difficult for trolls to be heard doesn't make it so that they don't exist. I read this article earlier and it came off like a regular forum rant, right up to the last line, talk about being on the frontlines of a problem

Er, if we can't hear them then I'd be pretty happy. They're free to exist, as long as they don't bother me. I've seen many forum rants, you're clearly lying when you say it's like a regular forum rant.

[Ominous Gamer]

Er, if we can't hear them then I'd be pretty happy. They're free to exist, as long as they don't bother me.

I would hope so, since its part of being human, but thats not what the thread was discussing.

I've seen many forum rants, you're clearly lying when you say it's like a regular forum rant.

[Aimless]

Don't roll your eyes, look at the article. It's an actual article, it's well-written, makes good points, and comes from a credible writer who's accomplished things. Regular forum rants tend to be none of those things. 90% of people on the internet have very strong "Pff I could do that too if I could be bothered" reflexes that serve to protect their self-esteem when faced with the competence of others.

[Ominous Gamer]

it's well-written, makes good points,

you need better forums

[Aimless]

Correction: the internet needs more good forums. As it is now, well-written articles are the exception rather than the rule, probably because the online mob's tendencies to dismiss everything worthwhile.

[Ominous Gamer]

alrighty, you appear to be taking this to seriously than what I was intending (sorry), which is getting away from the point I was hoping to get to.

Forums I read value the rants that are thought out and understandable, just like the Economist that Loki keeps bringing values opinions that go beyond "LAWLS IDIOT". Different sites use different methods, vB allows voting stars, Reddit uses up/down arrows, Economist allows reporting. While on the other end, the Huffington Post Loki slipped in there has no voting, and no report system. These systems don't mean that one user base is smarter/better/ more open minded than another; it means one system is better than hiding the idiots than others.

This is the rant level I'm accustomed to.

[Aimless]

This is the rant level I'm accustomed to.

Yes that is most certainly a rant, and not particularly enjoyable reading, in contrast to the articles on Wired and on Ars describing the same thing.

[Ominous Gamer]

and here I was thinking we were talking about Zhuo's opinion piece.