When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Disagree about Twitter. Powerful tool to dynamically self-curate info
True, for me too. The *right* people to follow, on twitter, mostly tweak out the noise and aren't very opinionated. The problem with Twitter is more with the user, in my view. It has no journalistic standard, if all you're doing is looking for agreement endorphins.
In comparison, journalism as edited / narrated by just about every name brand media source has gone down multiple rungs in quality. Professionally, I have a ton of respect for local beat reporters, who follow investment crucial news better than sell-side analysts, or the two big newspapers. They post links on Twitter, only when it matters. They also don't get paid well, and by and large are part of the collapse of journalism. Today, clicks make more money than content.
Ford has bigger problems, than Tesla. This afternoon, Moody's put them as close to junk as you can get (Baa3 Neg Outlook). What else can we do for this company, short of more executive-orders? Simultaneously, a dozen states (CARB) are being told they can't regulate auto emissions, while Trump's idea of "states rights" is to federally give a pass to those who'd push their emissions on others (ACE rule). -And Ford can't make double-standards, and pollution work for itself?
I agree with the first principles over “facts” line of reasoning, but that’s far harder to measure. I also agree that all these studies have flaws; that doesn’t mean they can’t say something useful.
On the other side I strongly disagree with only paying attention to things that “only affect your own well being and survival”. Given what I assume are our mutual tax brackets I suspect we’re both doing well on both counts, at which point it makes sense to start paying attention to other people’s well being and survival. Call me old fashioned.
On the other side I strongly disagree with only paying attention to things that “only affect your own well being and survival”. Given what I assume are our mutual tax brackets I suspect we’re both doing well on both counts, at which point it makes sense to start paying attention to other people’s well being and survival. Call me old fashioned.
I probably didn't express myself well enough. My well-being in large part involves positively affecting other people's well-being, as well. I just think that the govt and the mainstream media are much worse at helping anyone than me doing it on my own terms, hence I apportion my time and energy accordingly. Mainstream PR fights between camps of sociopathic predators under the pretext of helping one group or another are just a waste of my time. I pay them whatever they demand from me and I continue on my way. Call me very old fashioned.
My well-being in large part involves positively affecting other people's well-being, as well. I just think that the govt and the mainstream media are much worse at helping anyone than me doing it on my own terms, hence I apportion my time and energy accordingly.
On that we agree.
I still find it important to keep (filtered) tabs. My read of a fractured country is that the “mainsteam media” provided a baseline for discussion that is missing more and more. I struggle to see how Twitter makes a similar contribution, accepting that some find it highly useful for targeted information.
Interesting. Do you have the link to the full study, so I can understand the presented data better?
Some comments on the chart itself:
1. The x-axis starts at 50% (instead of 0%) making the NPR bar twice as long (and the NPR people twice as "smart") vs the Twitter bar (people). The averages are 71% and 59% respectively.
2. The study is self-selective and begs the question (i.e. it concludes its own initial assumptions/premises). It would only make sense that followers of mainstream media know more about "current events" (as defined by that same media) and "personal finance" (This one's especially good: Follow the herd if you want to come out financially ahead. ). 90% of what counts as "current events" after cursory scan of mainstream media is crap, noise, and PR wars/twists between various warring camps each with agendas and incentives buried under three layers of PR machinations. None of that stuff affects my well-being and survival, so I devote zero time and energy imbibing it.
3. When I was in school/college, the kids that knew all the facts (but none of the logic that connects them into a coherent mosaic) were the dumbest ones around. Who did what, when, where and to whom ("history") is not even nearly as important for one's well-being and survival as the WHY and the context in which those events had occurred.
4. In terms of "science", a kid that does not remember a single physics/math formula but could derive ALL of them from first principles (axioms), is 10x smarter than the kid who memorizes all of them but couldn't derive a single one. Nassim Taleb uses a phrase "Intellectual Yet Idiot" to describe the phenomenon. The mainstream is full of them, most of them also with zero "skin in the game" (also the title of Taleb's latest book) as their well-being and survival (tenure, contracts, etc.) have zero correlation with the consistently abysmal outcomes from their "expertise". I have a PhD and have published papers so can confirm this from my own experience.
5. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the bars quantify and correlate to "wisdom". What action should result from this "scientific" study? Maybe ban all sources except the bottom three and make the latter mandatory by playing them to the public over megaphones three times a day, to ensure that everyone gets the proper information towards a maximally wise society?
I'm aware that we veered way off the thread's subject so perfectly fine with winding this off-shoot down.
Good Points! Or simply put: What questions were asked to achieve the desired result/bias, e.g. 12 topics/questions typically discussed on NPR versus on FOX. NPR, hardly an unbiased repository
of world events/politics, yet publicly funded. It would be interesting to determine who funded the "study". Maybe those 12 questions should be part of GRE/LSAT/GMAT exam, right? What a joke!
Good Points! Or simply put: What questions were asked to achieve the desired result/bias, e.g. 12 topics/questions typically discussed on NPR versus on FOX. NPR, hardly an unbiased repository of world events/politics, yet publicly funded. Maybe those 12 questions should be part of GRE/LSAT/GMAT exam, right? What a joke!
And you looked at those questions before coming to your conclusion, right? Geography, that most politically biased of topics...
The majority of the questions were open-ended (open-to-interpretation of the interviewer or data source):
K8. According to official figures, about what percentage of Americans are currently unemployed?
OPEN END: DO NOT READ
Less than 5%
5.1
-
7.0%
7.1
-
8.0%
8.1
-
9.0%
9.1
-
10.0%
10.1
-
11.0%
Greater than 11%
K6A. In December, House Republicans agreed to a short
-
term extension of a payroll tax cut, but only if
President Obama agreed to do what?
OPEN END: DO NOT READ
Anything about Keystone XL Pipeline or oil pipeline or Canadian pipeline or State Department Review
of Pipeline or Expedited Environmental Review
Anything Else
DK
K8 - Whose "official" figures?
Key Issue: Are we now to assume, i.e. from the sample poll, that one's knowledge of political issues is a key measure of intelligence? I think NPR would like you to believe that.
If someone asked you that question in the US which figures would you assume they were looking for?
Originally Posted by Lorenfb
Key Issue: Are we now to assume, i.e. from the sample poll, that one's knowledge of political issues is a key measure of intelligence?
Knowledge = acquired information. Intelligence = ability to use it.
A Tesla short posted this on their twitter feed. Check out the plate. An ongoing battle for public opinion funded by billions on either side played out daily on our TVs, desktops and in our pockets. Little wonder we’re talking about it.
he's just being rude - kinda like parking in a handicapped spot - wait he probably is handicapped - intellectually - gas car's shouldn't occupy EV charging spaces - it's just simply rude.
I'm sure he just pulled in there for a minute to take a pic... Yeah, not the nicest message, but not a big deal. If he left it there, different story, but there is no reason to conclude that from what I can see...
I used to give people the benefit of the doubt - but after driving EV's for over 4 years gas cars parking in EV charging spots is a thing and very frustrating.
I still find it important to keep (filtered) tabs. My read of a fractured country is that the “mainsteam media” provided a baseline for discussion that is missing more and more. I struggle to see how Twitter makes a similar contribution, accepting that some find it highly useful for targeted information.
Pete, I just read your Tesla M3 review thread and loved it. With that thread, and other posts of yours on other automotive subjects you are the perfect example of how/why Twitter (and "social media" in general) shifts the paradigm from mainstream "authority" and "credentials" to the content itself. I have no idea who you are and what your credentials are but your posts are reasoned, well argued, informative, and make a lot of sense. Twitter allows you to curate (find) the highly intelligent, well argued content external to your current world view with the aim of improving it. In comparison, the level of debate in the mainstream on most subjects is downright retarded. If you were on Twitter, I'd follow you.
You are describing an echo chamber 😀 Smart people tend to challenge ideas and orthodoxy not self select to reinforce their own opinion and or beliefs.
The peer review process in academe is broken and has been this way for a long time. That's why it's common to "suggest" reviewers. Your Ph.D will have been reviewed by someone well known to your supervisor. 😀
Twitter........really smart people avoid both Twitter and Facebook.
he's just being rude - kinda like parking in a handicapped spot - wait he probably is handicapped - intellectually - gas car's shouldn't occupy EV charging spaces - it's just simply rude.
Or having a Tesla MX park in an EV spot (only two available) at a CHAdeMO/J1772 EV charging station (no Tesla adapter in use either)
and having the other spot with a vehicle having completed its charging session (unoccupied).
08-29-2018, 09:09 PM
). 90% of what counts as "current events" after cursory scan of mainstream media is crap, noise, and PR wars/twists between various warring camps each with agendas and incentives buried under three layers of PR machinations. None of that stuff affects my well-being and survival, so I devote zero time and energy imbibing it.
