The lit review fluff is a real thing. That's probably one of the reasons why open source scientific networks are outcompeting the legacy peer review system. Not only does bullshit get weeded out faster, but the leaner, meaner prose style cuts right to the point and communicates the important data faster and more effectively.
Yes, this is a big difference for me between meeting people inside academia and those outside of it. Academics have a mindset where they're not trying to accomplish something, not even to find truth, but add fluff, show how smart they are and flatter themselves and the system they're a part of. Even the way they approach social interactions reflects this in interesting ways.
I've had other academics directly state that they don't even believe truth exists. Which rather explains the feeling of spiritual emptiness that pervades the entire system.
Frankly modern academic activity is virtually indistinguishable from clout-chasing on social media.
As a person who strongly prefers not being infected by a virus with the potential to create long-term neurological, pulmonary and renal deficits, on top of above average mortality rates, I have considerable anger toward people who dismissed full adoption of public health initiatives meant to limit the spread of this highly contagious disease. I'm very curious why a thoughtful person like Mr. Hanania thinks such measures should be avoided, and whether he disagrees that full community implementation of transmission limiting measures would have drastically shortened the course of this pandemic?
"If your IQ is 95, I’m going to suggest different heuristics from if your IQ is 130 or 140."
I think that's a great point, especially in the current environment. One of my heuristics used to be that I can read the New York Times, watch CNN, look at pronouncements from public health agencies, read respected academic journals, etc., and accept what they're saying as basically true, while maintaining awareness of the fact that plenty of bias goes into editorial decisions. Once that heuristic fails, as it has spectacularly in the past several years (and I now realize I put too much faith in the heuristic previously), things get complicated.
I feel pretty comfortable with the heuristics I've created since (however vaguely defined and admittedly relying more than I would like on intuition), though I've seen a lot of people drifting off into outer space. I've seen people - in Substack comments and IRL - who have gone from "the establishment lies a lot" to something like "the opposite of what the establishment says is the truth, everything is psyops and grand global conspiracies, and everyone who doesn't see the world through this lens is controlled opposition under the influence of mass psychosis." While there are undoubtedly some high IQ people who think this way, I think it is mostly lower IQ people who became completely untethered from reality due to the catastrophic failures of mainstream information channels. An interesting project would be to devise a set of heuristics specifically for lower IQ and/or busy people for making sense in a world of collapsing and corrupt mainstream information distribution channels. I think it would come down to something like read a diverse set of perspectives, take it all with a grain of salt, and learn to embrace uncertainty. Not sure we can do too much better than that in the current environment. Thoughts?
"You know, of course, be on the lookout for the ideology. I think the more an issue touches on ‘wokeness,’ the worse you should expect the p-hacking and the file drawer effect to be."
I definitely use this heuristic. When I go down a few rabbit holes and see a lot of shoddy work going in the same ideological direction, I tend to presume I'm being misled by anything that goes in that direction.
A healthy understanding of the basic mechanics behind the collecting, editing, and reporting of "mainstream" news is necessary to take away useful information from it, without a doubt. And I would posit that the lack of understanding of those mechanics in the large majority of the population has opened the opportunity for unscrupulous actors to leverage both the gaps in people's understanding and in news organizations' resources to leverage inevitable minor inconsistencies into a wholesale assault on the institution of public journalism overall, generally to advance their own fringe theories on how society should work. Much to the detriment of the concept of shared truth, and to civilization as a whole.
With that in mind, I don't see the spectacular failure of reliable sources of public information you refer to. Is there anything particular you can point at? Otherwise it sounds like more of the babble of discontents upset that their worldview is not being adopted by society's opinion makers, and then discredit the institutions themselves. Not trying to offend, but that's how I hear it, and I'm curious what drives people's distrust. I really believe without an honest consensus on what is truth, we are doomed to tear ourselves apart as a functioning democracy. Which I find genuinely frightening, as the possible alternatives are mostly unappealing, to say the least.
In support of my “MSM sucks” thesis, I suppose I would cite to basically everything media critics like Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss, Aaron Mate, Vinay Prasad, Robert Wright, etc., have written over the past few years. They’re pretty meticulous about presenting receipts. They document pretty well consistently poor journalism that almost always errs in the predictable ideological direction. It’s one thing to make mistakes. But consistently getting stories wrong in a way that supports pre-conceived narratives, and consistently refusing to report on or otherwise downplaying stories that undermine those narratives (see e.g. Hunter’s laptop) is evidence of decay, corruption, and lack of rigorous standards and ethics.
I basically took a break from closely following the news from after Trump got elected until Covid arrived, to preserve my own sanity. When I returned, I quickly intuited that something had changed. NYT no longer read like the matter-of-fact attempts (whether ultimately successful or not) at objectivity and balance I remembered. It read (and still reads) like propaganda. The removal of James Benet revealed how deep the ideological rot was within the paper of record. I then looked into whether anyone else was seeing this corruption, and found the aforementioned writers. I guess if you are insistent enough on “NYT, WaPo, etc. are reliable sources of information, delivered with high levels of journalistic standards” as a dominant heuristic, nothing anyone says will shake you out of it. But once you see the corruption, decay, and lack of standards, you can’t unsee it.
I see your point, and am passingly familiar with the critics you cite. As a long time reader of the NY Times I've noticed a decline these past several years in the overall quality of its writing. But with that said, I think it's worthwhile to step back and look at a larger picture, using the Times as a proxy for the larger news media generally, while acknowledging its position as a premiere institution within that Universe. Which is to ask, are we better with it or without it?
It's more than fair to say the Times is corrupted by its service to the existing power structures. It's in fact obvious. But this is what I meant earlier by understanding the mechanics of delivering news. Because it's just as obvious that if mainstream news organizations regularly called out the powerful for their myriad lies and hypocrisies, those organizations would be quickly shut off from the information that is their stock and trade. Their mission becomes reporting what is apparent, and the discerning reader must detect nuance and fill in the gaps.
Perhaps that is not enough, and more should be demanded. But I have to say I respect and enjoy the work they do, while understanding the flaws to some extent. Because they, the Times and all the others, are providing an invaluable service despite the shortcomings inherent in their model. They are providing insight into the affairs of the world that I would have no way of seeing otherwise. I can always look to other sources and voices for dissenting opinions. I feel like the fourth estate, as embodied by mainstream news organizations, is criminally devalued lately, a truly sad state of affairs. An informed populace is engaged and empowered. While an uninformed one is malleable and easily manipulated. Herr Trump's exclamation, "I love the uneducated!" rings loudly in my ears.
The history of mankind is a history of corruption. Journalists, politicians, generals, businessmen, all make decisions based on how they will most benefit. To wish otherwise or expect people to act solely for the greater good is somewhat delusional. I try to factor this knowledge into my calculations, and attempt to maintain an outlook of cynical optimism.
Are there enough remaining mask mandates to make this a cost effective effort? [Living in the Libertarian paradise of Washington DC, I don't see the point. :)]
But if so I suggest a different strategy. Develop a methodology that on the basis of observation of specific phenomenon make the cost of wearing a mask to people in specific situations positive to themselves and others. Then show that these situations do not exist in the situation in which the mask mandate is being applied.
Move to the Canadian province of Ontario. All remaining mask mandates end this coming Saturday. Most were lifted weeks ago except for so-called high-risk environments like public transit and healthcare settings.
The lit review fluff is a real thing. That's probably one of the reasons why open source scientific networks are outcompeting the legacy peer review system. Not only does bullshit get weeded out faster, but the leaner, meaner prose style cuts right to the point and communicates the important data faster and more effectively.
Yes, this is a big difference for me between meeting people inside academia and those outside of it. Academics have a mindset where they're not trying to accomplish something, not even to find truth, but add fluff, show how smart they are and flatter themselves and the system they're a part of. Even the way they approach social interactions reflects this in interesting ways.
I've had other academics directly state that they don't even believe truth exists. Which rather explains the feeling of spiritual emptiness that pervades the entire system.
Frankly modern academic activity is virtually indistinguishable from clout-chasing on social media.
I've often said the original hot takers were academics searching for a hook for their papers.
A few doctors in Sarasota wrote many exemptions for children last year: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/16/us/florida-chiropractor-mask-exemption/index.html
What a hero! Is he still in business?
Chiropractors are not doctors.
"So, for example, in economics, my prior is that markets are better than central planning."
Mine too, but that's way too general to be of much use to bring to the issue of feature X of a "stimulus bill."
As a person who strongly prefers not being infected by a virus with the potential to create long-term neurological, pulmonary and renal deficits, on top of above average mortality rates, I have considerable anger toward people who dismissed full adoption of public health initiatives meant to limit the spread of this highly contagious disease. I'm very curious why a thoughtful person like Mr. Hanania thinks such measures should be avoided, and whether he disagrees that full community implementation of transmission limiting measures would have drastically shortened the course of this pandemic?
"full community implementation of transmission limiting measures"
Wow, no need to elaborate on specifics I guess if you feel so strongly about it.
"If your IQ is 95, I’m going to suggest different heuristics from if your IQ is 130 or 140."
I think that's a great point, especially in the current environment. One of my heuristics used to be that I can read the New York Times, watch CNN, look at pronouncements from public health agencies, read respected academic journals, etc., and accept what they're saying as basically true, while maintaining awareness of the fact that plenty of bias goes into editorial decisions. Once that heuristic fails, as it has spectacularly in the past several years (and I now realize I put too much faith in the heuristic previously), things get complicated.
I feel pretty comfortable with the heuristics I've created since (however vaguely defined and admittedly relying more than I would like on intuition), though I've seen a lot of people drifting off into outer space. I've seen people - in Substack comments and IRL - who have gone from "the establishment lies a lot" to something like "the opposite of what the establishment says is the truth, everything is psyops and grand global conspiracies, and everyone who doesn't see the world through this lens is controlled opposition under the influence of mass psychosis." While there are undoubtedly some high IQ people who think this way, I think it is mostly lower IQ people who became completely untethered from reality due to the catastrophic failures of mainstream information channels. An interesting project would be to devise a set of heuristics specifically for lower IQ and/or busy people for making sense in a world of collapsing and corrupt mainstream information distribution channels. I think it would come down to something like read a diverse set of perspectives, take it all with a grain of salt, and learn to embrace uncertainty. Not sure we can do too much better than that in the current environment. Thoughts?
"You know, of course, be on the lookout for the ideology. I think the more an issue touches on ‘wokeness,’ the worse you should expect the p-hacking and the file drawer effect to be."
I definitely use this heuristic. When I go down a few rabbit holes and see a lot of shoddy work going in the same ideological direction, I tend to presume I'm being misled by anything that goes in that direction.
A healthy understanding of the basic mechanics behind the collecting, editing, and reporting of "mainstream" news is necessary to take away useful information from it, without a doubt. And I would posit that the lack of understanding of those mechanics in the large majority of the population has opened the opportunity for unscrupulous actors to leverage both the gaps in people's understanding and in news organizations' resources to leverage inevitable minor inconsistencies into a wholesale assault on the institution of public journalism overall, generally to advance their own fringe theories on how society should work. Much to the detriment of the concept of shared truth, and to civilization as a whole.
With that in mind, I don't see the spectacular failure of reliable sources of public information you refer to. Is there anything particular you can point at? Otherwise it sounds like more of the babble of discontents upset that their worldview is not being adopted by society's opinion makers, and then discredit the institutions themselves. Not trying to offend, but that's how I hear it, and I'm curious what drives people's distrust. I really believe without an honest consensus on what is truth, we are doomed to tear ourselves apart as a functioning democracy. Which I find genuinely frightening, as the possible alternatives are mostly unappealing, to say the least.
In support of my “MSM sucks” thesis, I suppose I would cite to basically everything media critics like Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss, Aaron Mate, Vinay Prasad, Robert Wright, etc., have written over the past few years. They’re pretty meticulous about presenting receipts. They document pretty well consistently poor journalism that almost always errs in the predictable ideological direction. It’s one thing to make mistakes. But consistently getting stories wrong in a way that supports pre-conceived narratives, and consistently refusing to report on or otherwise downplaying stories that undermine those narratives (see e.g. Hunter’s laptop) is evidence of decay, corruption, and lack of rigorous standards and ethics.
I basically took a break from closely following the news from after Trump got elected until Covid arrived, to preserve my own sanity. When I returned, I quickly intuited that something had changed. NYT no longer read like the matter-of-fact attempts (whether ultimately successful or not) at objectivity and balance I remembered. It read (and still reads) like propaganda. The removal of James Benet revealed how deep the ideological rot was within the paper of record. I then looked into whether anyone else was seeing this corruption, and found the aforementioned writers. I guess if you are insistent enough on “NYT, WaPo, etc. are reliable sources of information, delivered with high levels of journalistic standards” as a dominant heuristic, nothing anyone says will shake you out of it. But once you see the corruption, decay, and lack of standards, you can’t unsee it.
I see your point, and am passingly familiar with the critics you cite. As a long time reader of the NY Times I've noticed a decline these past several years in the overall quality of its writing. But with that said, I think it's worthwhile to step back and look at a larger picture, using the Times as a proxy for the larger news media generally, while acknowledging its position as a premiere institution within that Universe. Which is to ask, are we better with it or without it?
It's more than fair to say the Times is corrupted by its service to the existing power structures. It's in fact obvious. But this is what I meant earlier by understanding the mechanics of delivering news. Because it's just as obvious that if mainstream news organizations regularly called out the powerful for their myriad lies and hypocrisies, those organizations would be quickly shut off from the information that is their stock and trade. Their mission becomes reporting what is apparent, and the discerning reader must detect nuance and fill in the gaps.
Perhaps that is not enough, and more should be demanded. But I have to say I respect and enjoy the work they do, while understanding the flaws to some extent. Because they, the Times and all the others, are providing an invaluable service despite the shortcomings inherent in their model. They are providing insight into the affairs of the world that I would have no way of seeing otherwise. I can always look to other sources and voices for dissenting opinions. I feel like the fourth estate, as embodied by mainstream news organizations, is criminally devalued lately, a truly sad state of affairs. An informed populace is engaged and empowered. While an uninformed one is malleable and easily manipulated. Herr Trump's exclamation, "I love the uneducated!" rings loudly in my ears.
The history of mankind is a history of corruption. Journalists, politicians, generals, businessmen, all make decisions based on how they will most benefit. To wish otherwise or expect people to act solely for the greater good is somewhat delusional. I try to factor this knowledge into my calculations, and attempt to maintain an outlook of cynical optimism.
Are there enough remaining mask mandates to make this a cost effective effort? [Living in the Libertarian paradise of Washington DC, I don't see the point. :)]
But if so I suggest a different strategy. Develop a methodology that on the basis of observation of specific phenomenon make the cost of wearing a mask to people in specific situations positive to themselves and others. Then show that these situations do not exist in the situation in which the mask mandate is being applied.
Move to the Canadian province of Ontario. All remaining mask mandates end this coming Saturday. Most were lifted weeks ago except for so-called high-risk environments like public transit and healthcare settings.
It’s over.