I agree, and teaching young people how to decide who to trust is so important. (I’m a teacher, so I’m thinking about this stuff all the time.)
Looking for a motive or bias is the most basic level of this. It’s sad how many young men actually look up to Andrew Tate. It’s disheartening. And I teach middle school.
During the week my spare minutes are spent on this: "You probably don't even have time to keep up with the latest stupid thing Trump did." Friday nights I come and read and gain back some of the IQ points I lost trying to figure out how we got here, where we're going and seriously pondering if the whole world could agree to outlaw all caps after we wake from this extended episode of The Apprentice or maybe some version of A Clockwork Orange.
It is exhausting just scrolling by the nonsense at this point. It's got to be exhausting to actually be Donald Trump.
I know twitter can be a dumpster fire but I love it because I've spent a long time following and unfollowing people I trust (you've been a great resource for that, Noah) to give me good information and morally good opinions. I don't have to do a lot of leg work to stay informed, which is great with a job, a 4 year old, and a 3 month old.
What's can be tough is thinking about the information you're getting and knowing when to cut off certain sources. I may agree with someone like Will Stanch 75% of the time but the other 25% became a bit too much so I unfollowed. And I'm not sure I've ever gone back to follow someone I unfollowed. It's usually worth it to whittle down.
"When people tell you that you should form opinions independently, that's other people telling you to form opinions independently."
And THERE it is! I've been looking for the right zinger to counter that 'think for yourself' bullshit...
Its that 'one against the many/ American exceptionalism thing rearing its ugly head again...An obsessive need for a narrative where 'YOU' are the hero...
Do people even HAVE real hobbies or interests anymore? LOL. I think that would take care of a lot of the unhealthy onanistic ultimately isolating 'thinking'
In general I agree with this. But the place you need to "think for yourself" is when you are trying to decide between conflicting opinions by two acknowledged experts. That's where the thinking skills come in: evaluating the evidence that each presents, seeing whose arguments make the most internal sense, evaluating logic and looking for unstated assumptions. THAT is the role of the unexpert brain in "thinking for oneself." Those skills can be learned by anyone, and need to be taught WAY more than they are.
"But the place you need to "think for yourself" is when you are trying to decide between conflicting opinions by two acknowledged experts"
If you have two experts on the same subject with widely conflicting opinions. One of them is lying to you, Or the differences of opinion are minuscule and/or only of interest in the rarified arcane world of that expertise.* Noah B didn't say it explicitly, but I'm pretty sure that when he is talking about 'experts' he doesn't mean 'individuals' necessarily but expert consensus. If you ask 2 experts with conflicting opinions what the CONSENSUS is within their field, they will have to tell you the same thing because the consensus us the consensus whether an expert in the feild agrees with it or not.. people with a Galileo complex.
* back in the 80s I think, Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould had a big tiff over an evolutionary process suggested by Gould: Punctuated Equilibrium, but the argument was on the high end of the theory snd in NO WAY undermined any of the already well established theories, si the conflict wouldn't interest anyone EXCEPT people in the field and science nerds like me
I'm not sure he WAS talking about "consensus," though you still need your thinking skills to sort out WHY the consensus is opposed to the minority. But there are a lot of issues where experts have good faith differing views. Economic policy is rife with them.
I really don't know so Im not being provacative. but anyone still arguing for trickle down economics isn't arguing in good faith. And economist like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman may disagree on some small issues, but they see absolutely eye to eye on all of the essential basics. The kinds of disagreements that they would have would be highly esoteric and quite arcane to the lay person
Also when you rely on experts, you are relying on them to accurately and honestly reflect the consensus. Even if they don't necessarily agree with it otherwise they are just rogue experts. Like Andrew Wakeman the anti-VAX guy from England.
And per any of the sciences or soft sciences without a consensus it's probably best to just stay away from having an opinion on all together. If even experts can't agree on basic tenets of a theory
Then expertise in that field itself is highly questionable.
And especially in economics there are strong incentives to misrepresent how the economy works. There are very profitable reasons for lying to the American public.
I agree, and teaching young people how to decide who to trust is so important. (I’m a teacher, so I’m thinking about this stuff all the time.)
Looking for a motive or bias is the most basic level of this. It’s sad how many young men actually look up to Andrew Tate. It’s disheartening. And I teach middle school.
Of course we are not self-created. But we do have to reflect on what we receive. So in the end it’s a bit of a combo.
you're not the first person to say that!
Yes, of course. This is a view, in fact. A very common one.
Although many of the sentences we speak are unique.
Not this one!
No, not this one.
During the week my spare minutes are spent on this: "You probably don't even have time to keep up with the latest stupid thing Trump did." Friday nights I come and read and gain back some of the IQ points I lost trying to figure out how we got here, where we're going and seriously pondering if the whole world could agree to outlaw all caps after we wake from this extended episode of The Apprentice or maybe some version of A Clockwork Orange.
It is exhausting just scrolling by the nonsense at this point. It's got to be exhausting to actually be Donald Trump.
Now I wish I wasn't thinking. 🤷
I know twitter can be a dumpster fire but I love it because I've spent a long time following and unfollowing people I trust (you've been a great resource for that, Noah) to give me good information and morally good opinions. I don't have to do a lot of leg work to stay informed, which is great with a job, a 4 year old, and a 3 month old.
What's can be tough is thinking about the information you're getting and knowing when to cut off certain sources. I may agree with someone like Will Stanch 75% of the time but the other 25% became a bit too much so I unfollowed. And I'm not sure I've ever gone back to follow someone I unfollowed. It's usually worth it to whittle down.
"When people tell you that you should form opinions independently, that's other people telling you to form opinions independently."
And THERE it is! I've been looking for the right zinger to counter that 'think for yourself' bullshit...
Its that 'one against the many/ American exceptionalism thing rearing its ugly head again...An obsessive need for a narrative where 'YOU' are the hero...
Do people even HAVE real hobbies or interests anymore? LOL. I think that would take care of a lot of the unhealthy onanistic ultimately isolating 'thinking'
In general I agree with this. But the place you need to "think for yourself" is when you are trying to decide between conflicting opinions by two acknowledged experts. That's where the thinking skills come in: evaluating the evidence that each presents, seeing whose arguments make the most internal sense, evaluating logic and looking for unstated assumptions. THAT is the role of the unexpert brain in "thinking for oneself." Those skills can be learned by anyone, and need to be taught WAY more than they are.
"But the place you need to "think for yourself" is when you are trying to decide between conflicting opinions by two acknowledged experts"
If you have two experts on the same subject with widely conflicting opinions. One of them is lying to you, Or the differences of opinion are minuscule and/or only of interest in the rarified arcane world of that expertise.* Noah B didn't say it explicitly, but I'm pretty sure that when he is talking about 'experts' he doesn't mean 'individuals' necessarily but expert consensus. If you ask 2 experts with conflicting opinions what the CONSENSUS is within their field, they will have to tell you the same thing because the consensus us the consensus whether an expert in the feild agrees with it or not.. people with a Galileo complex.
* back in the 80s I think, Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould had a big tiff over an evolutionary process suggested by Gould: Punctuated Equilibrium, but the argument was on the high end of the theory snd in NO WAY undermined any of the already well established theories, si the conflict wouldn't interest anyone EXCEPT people in the field and science nerds like me
I'm not sure he WAS talking about "consensus," though you still need your thinking skills to sort out WHY the consensus is opposed to the minority. But there are a lot of issues where experts have good faith differing views. Economic policy is rife with them.
"Economic policy is rife with them."
Like...
I really don't know so Im not being provacative. but anyone still arguing for trickle down economics isn't arguing in good faith. And economist like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman may disagree on some small issues, but they see absolutely eye to eye on all of the essential basics. The kinds of disagreements that they would have would be highly esoteric and quite arcane to the lay person
Also when you rely on experts, you are relying on them to accurately and honestly reflect the consensus. Even if they don't necessarily agree with it otherwise they are just rogue experts. Like Andrew Wakeman the anti-VAX guy from England.
And per any of the sciences or soft sciences without a consensus it's probably best to just stay away from having an opinion on all together. If even experts can't agree on basic tenets of a theory
Then expertise in that field itself is highly questionable.
And especially in economics there are strong incentives to misrepresent how the economy works. There are very profitable reasons for lying to the American public.
there's a good bit of argument among economists right now about the extent to which stimulus is inflationary, if at all...fwiw.
the soft sciences roll like that I suppose!
(:
A wise article. I’d like to make a million print versions and distribute widely.
It is not just relying on others, it is also others relying on you. It is only then everyone becomes strong.