Social Media Debate: When experts have to interact with the public who THINKS it knows better (is society getting dumber?)
- Thread starter playahaitian
- Start date
I had a two dudes on a Amazon Merch FB group try to tell me that my recommendation of using a redshift program (to change the color temperature based on your location and time of day) and lowering the overall brightness reduces blue light from a monitor (you get orders of magnitude more from sunlight and ambient light in a room). The original poster thought that the blue light wavelength emitted by the monitor was causing her eyestrain when in most cases it's due to a person sitting in front of a monitor for hours non-stop without taking a break being the likely culprit. The two idiots kept harping on about the monitors with BS marketing "features" that prey on the uneducated when more reputable monitor manufacturers, who've done the studies, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology said otherwise.
EPIC commentary, specifically what's quoted above.
Should be required reading site - wide.
Damn i really thought @4 Dimensional invented this...
https://dillonfreed.com/2016/05/24/emotional-hypocrisy-by-dillon-freed/
Whelp...
Let me finally admit my emotional hypocrisy
I'm still saying he did.
Happy New Year
https://dillonfreed.com/2016/05/24/emotional-hypocrisy-by-dillon-freed/
Whelp...
Let me finally admit my emotional hypocrisy
I'm still saying he did.
Happy New Year
smh
Sometimes the public DOES KNOW BETTER.
Much better...
Sometimes "experts" dont know what the fuck they are talking about...
When the Paris Exhibition closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.” – Oxford professor Erasmus Wilson, 1878
Time has proven many so callEd experts had no idea what the fuck they were talking about...
Much better...
Sometimes "experts" dont know what the fuck they are talking about...
When the Paris Exhibition closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.” – Oxford professor Erasmus Wilson, 1878
Time has proven many so callEd experts had no idea what the fuck they were talking about...
1. Understand what makes someone an expert
Erasmus Wilson was a dermatologist & surgeon - how in the fuck would he be considered an expert on physical sciences of the time?
When that quote was made - the "experts" included Warren de la Rue, Joseph Wilson Swan, Henry Woodward & Mathew Evans. Edison, Tesla etc
While the general public at that time imagined electricity was magical unknown force cable of anything including possibly bringing the dead back to life
2. What is critical thinking?
For the sake of your argument - lets imagine that Erasmus was an expert on physics of his time instead of a skin doctor...
How would a prejudiced, or short sighted/ errant prediction of future usage and innovation invalidate years of study and knowledge gained from real world usage and experimentation? How would that invalidate any knowledge and expertise on the current technology, logistics, existing trends etc?
first off watch your language muthafucka....
bottom line was he an expert yes or no???
you a lil early bruh...
and the point was experts dont always know what they are talkin about...
its always good to hear both sides and make your own choice that works best for you...
"Foxes know many things while hedgehogs know one big thing.
Being deeply knowledgeable on one subject narrows one’s focus and increases confidence,
but it also blurs dissenting views until they are no longer visible, thereby transforming data collection into bias confirmation and morphing self-deception into self-assurance.
The world is a messy, complex, and contingent place with countless intervening variables and confounding factors, which foxes are comfortable with but hedgehogs are not.
Low scorers in Tetlock’s study were “thinkers who ‘know one big thing,’ aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristly impatience with those who ‘do not get it,’ and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty proficient forecasters.”
By contrast, says Tetlock, high scorers were “thinkers who know many small things (tricks of their trade), are skeptical of grand schemes, see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises
but rather as exercises in flexible ‘ad hocery’ that require sticking together diverse sources of information, and are rather diffident about their own forecasting prowess.”
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...ost-always-wrong-9997024/#BrHSKotZBU0K8H2Y.99
Being deeply knowledgeable on one subject narrows one’s focus and increases confidence,
but it also blurs dissenting views until they are no longer visible, thereby transforming data collection into bias confirmation and morphing self-deception into self-assurance.
The world is a messy, complex, and contingent place with countless intervening variables and confounding factors, which foxes are comfortable with but hedgehogs are not.
Low scorers in Tetlock’s study were “thinkers who ‘know one big thing,’ aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristly impatience with those who ‘do not get it,’ and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty proficient forecasters.”
By contrast, says Tetlock, high scorers were “thinkers who know many small things (tricks of their trade), are skeptical of grand schemes, see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises
but rather as exercises in flexible ‘ad hocery’ that require sticking together diverse sources of information, and are rather diffident about their own forecasting prowess.”
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...ost-always-wrong-9997024/#BrHSKotZBU0K8H2Y.99
LOL of course you would hold this opinion
of course you hide under many screen names...
Yeah, I don't post under any other screen names.
I also know when I'm out of my depth and I'm willing to fall back and learn more.
But go off bruh...
yea with some FACTS my good bruh...
Thomas Malthus predicted that overpopulation would lead to war and famine. In 1968, at 4 billion people, experts published The Population Bomb and The Limits to Growth and predicted the same thing.
Today, in 2014, there are over 7 billion people on the planet. Nevertheless, global poverty and violence are at all-time lows. Even carbon emissions are dropping (at least in the US). It seems the that experts were mistaken.
In a sense, that shouldn’t be surprising. There will always be a wealth of experts arguing a number of sides to any given issue and most will be proved wrong. Yet we still seek them out because whenever there is uncertainty, we listen to anyone who professes to know more than we do. By looking for easy answers, we’re asking for trouble.
A Battle Of Experts
After World War II, Richard Feynman was one of the world’s most promising young scientists. He was also one of the most eccentric. So, few were surprised when he decided to take a year off to lecture in Brazil and play in a samba band. When you’re a genius, you can get away with that sort of thing.
Yet when he returned to the US, he felt lost. The physics world was engaged in a great debate about the decay of some obscure subatomic particles and he found himself completely unable to follow it. His sister suggested that instead of listening to experts, he try to figure it out for himself.
So that’s what he did, but was soon even more confused. The whole argument seemed to make no sense. He dug a little further and discovered why. The original paper that had given rise to the debate was deeply flawed. Feynman had even read it before leaving for Brazil and discarded it because it contained a fundamental—and very obvious—error.
Apparently, none of the great physicists arguing the issue had actually read the original paper. It had somehow just slipped through and nobody really checked it. They just assumed that someone, somewhere had vetted it, so they went on with their debate, oblivious to the fact that they were wasting their time on gibberish.
Feynman never considered himself an expert, but likened himself to a confused ape, which was one reason he saw further and more clearly than everyone else.
The Confidence Trap
One of the things that makes experts so convincing is that they exude confidence. They can talk calmly and knowledgeably about a subject, make reference to relevant facts and build a compelling logic for their case. A good expert is always impressive, but still usually wrong.
In fact, in 20 year study of political experts, Philip Tetlockfound that that their predictions were no better than flipping a coin. Further, he found that pundits who specialized in a particular field tended to perform worse than those whose knowledge was more general. In the contest between the hedgehog and the fox, the fox nearly always wins.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsa...rts-always-seem-to-get-it-wrong/#2e1c1afd3a36
thats the point brain dead ed... to not just listen to one "expert".
seek out the information on your own.. from various sources..too many of us has gotten so lazy, we just hear someone say it on t.v because there is the word expert put before their name...
and like mindless parrots... just run with it...
but brain dead parrots like you just seek out people who sound intelligent so you can parrot them word for word rather than think for yourself
but dont let me stop you polly... go get yo cracker..
what is the logic of your question?
you post like a person that expects to get expert knowledge on medicine from a lawyer
Not early
I'm looking toward the future with positive energy.
We all building exchanging respectfully
you need LOGIC for a simple yes or no question...
you keedin right ??
ok let me slow it down.... my point was.. that just because someone is an expert... dont make them right...
you pointed out that he wasnt an expert on physics... but that has nothing to do with the fact that he was an expert on something so his opinion mattered on other things...
which proved my point that just because someone is an expert, dont make them right..
then you went on to say how nobody shouldve listened to him because he wasnt in the field he was given advice on...
which doesnt change the fact that people did listen to him because he was an expert...
are you following or should I try and slow it down to snail speed,
and just for the record...there are MEDICAL lawyers you know....
its such thankless work being mrfreddygoodbud
Thank you for unintentionally helping prove this thread
thanks as usual for providing useless commentary which debunks or disproves nothing again..
but the fact that like assholes and elbows you have an opinion..
fallback before its too late
you are arguing apples and oranges -
we are talking about people with a gut feeling challenging an expert in their own expertise
not people opining on shit they know little about and the weight the public gives those opinions
again - I'll ask what is critical thinking?
the people that listened to Erasmus because of "celebrity" or knowledge in a different area were either gullible ignorant or mentally lazy...
I won't get expert knowledge on ForEx options from Dr. Neal Degrasse Tyson.... his opinions on that would be worthless
but there are other physicists that are expert on the math involved on pricing out options
So listen to this speech
Is it motivational
Is it inspirational
Or is this someone with vast amount of personal experience detailing the pillars of a process to the uninformed?
Can he be called an EXPERT?
Or is this just basic shot and rhetoric WRAPPED in the appearance of wisdom knowledge ane experience.
Is this something that could the audience into believing Arnold is an EXPERT?
(If you think he is not)
Is it motivational
Is it inspirational
Or is this someone with vast amount of personal experience detailing the pillars of a process to the uninformed?
Can he be called an EXPERT?
Or is this just basic shot and rhetoric WRAPPED in the appearance of wisdom knowledge ane experience.
Is this something that could the audience into believing Arnold is an EXPERT?
(If you think he is not)
oh I feel ya.. yea you need a little more than a gut feeling and a wikipedia paragraph to challange someone in their field..
thats for damn sure....
I was just really talkin about like those so called experts who said.. rock and roll music would never amount to anything..
just because the performers were "black" type of thing..
but yea like I would never argue with my bruh fourth dimension on weather patterns...
the existence of chemtrails yes.. weather patterns no fuckin way.. lol
ok I see your point...
carry on...
But see that what we been discussing and debating for 4 pages
No matter WHAT we think...or believe
How you gonna tell Arnold you know more about weight lifting body training etc
When you cant even keep a ymca membership?
I CAN'T DEBATE HIM.
I can ask questions.
The RIGHT ones.
Now the flip is..
Can a bio chemist or 20 year physical therapist or WADA executive doctor
DEBATE Arnold on training and steroids?
Arnold isn't a medical or scientific professional
But we can't deny he has valid certified PRACTICAL experience.
Which is MORE VALID?
Or more trustworthy?
Id take certified practical experience for four hundred alex....
UNDERSTOOD...
but you aint gonna DISMISS the others right?
you still gotta RESPECT what they bring to the the discussion...
Because they giving a different (EDUCATED) view point that is JUST as valid...
we saying the public now thinks cause they WATCHED Arnold's bio?
they can DEBATE these professionals or dismiss what they have to say.
It CAN'T be that.
However I am also torn on NON athletes criticizing veteran players on play on the field...
SO I again UNDERSTAND your stance fully
++++++++
I listen to everyone and read everything then come to my own decisions..
I agree with what arnold was saying, but the speech was average at best..
he hasnt said anything that wasnt said a thousand times before... by every life coach on youtube....
I listen to everyone and read everything then come to my own decisions..
I agree with what arnold was saying, but the speech was average at best..
he hasnt said anything that wasnt said a thousand times before... by every life coach on youtube....
but OBVIOUSLY to many?
He is some type of EXPERT.
and many will believe or FOLLOW his words MORE then someone MORE legitimate.
well there will always be more followers than leaders..
muthafuckas advertisers know this thats why they pay people like arnold big bucks to be spokespersons...
when you hear speechs like MLKs last speech, how his eyes have seen the glory....
or charlie chaplins great speech...
then when you hear speechs like this you realize how high the bar has been set..
or charlie chaplins great speech...
then when you hear speechs like this you realize how high the bar has been set..
The question is this...
Would MLK or Chaplin or JFK speech resonate with TODAY'S audience?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
depends on the audience... most of todays youth have the attention span of a goldfish...
so unless it has dope beat to it, or a classic hook.. good luck tryin to hold their attention....
but with a sophisticated audience... yea they would enjoy both speeches immensely.
depends on the audience... most of todays youth have the attention span of a goldfish...
so unless it has dope beat to it, or a classic hook.. good luck tryin to hold their attention....
but with a sophisticated audience... yea they would enjoy both speeches immensely.
Also, there is a big difference between an expert and someone that’s experienced.
I’m experienced in Linux, but I’m no expert. I’m basically saying I’ve been using Linux for over 10 years, but I don’t have enough in-depth understanding to say I’m an expert.
I’m experienced in programming, but I’m not an expert in one language.
I can be an experienced driver, but people that race cars as a profession are experts drivers.
I’m experienced in cooking, but I’m no expert because I’m no professional chef.
Everyone here can say they have experience in meteorology, but I’m a expert because of the in-depth understanding in math and physics that some people do not study.
I’m experienced in Linux, but I’m no expert. I’m basically saying I’ve been using Linux for over 10 years, but I don’t have enough in-depth understanding to say I’m an expert.
I’m experienced in programming, but I’m not an expert in one language.
I can be an experienced driver, but people that race cars as a profession are experts drivers.
I’m experienced in cooking, but I’m no expert because I’m no professional chef.
Everyone here can say they have experience in meteorology, but I’m a expert because of the in-depth understanding in math and physics that some people do not study.
Last edited: