Hacker News Reader

Comment by EatingWithForks | Hacker News Reader

It's not necessarily that they're bad it's just that they're likely not a valuable source of acquiring information outside of what supports a specific position. Like I wouldn't necessarily trust an oil baron to tell me about how global warming doesn't really exist, or I don't necessarily believe Disney's Iger to tell me about how the writing and acting strikes are entitled whining nonsense.

View on HN

...and the only legitimate source to ask about climate change is the Sierra Club.

and the only legitimate source to ask about the need for copyrights is Disney.

It always cuts both ways. Just because they're against the position you think is obviously correct doesn't mean that you can dismiss a dissenting position. Every story has another side to it. (Well, except this one :) )

Never ask a barber if you need a haircut.

Wouldn't that apply to epidemiologists as well?

I mean, it applies to everyone. The more interesting question in this context is, which of the two groups does it apply to more?

If I have to put both the average CEO and the average epidemiologist on a spectrum of "more interested in my well-being" to "more interested in my pocketbook", I know where I'd put each one.

For a barber, more haircuts = more money. Trying to imagine what kind of relationship you think epidemiologists have with money? It's not like they get a nickel for every person they save from getting sick.

Not everything is purely about money. People are highly motivated by a sense of power or prominence, by a sense of belonging in the "correct group", and by a sense of being useful or productive at their profession. A barber as much as money will believe their haircut will make you look good.

As a thought exercise, I wonder to which group an epidemiologist would need to belong to have a sense of power? The group that says that there is a dangerous disease or the group that says that it's not particularly dangerous?

PS: For people who wonder, the H factor-style ranking mechanisms for researchers means that your rank is higher (which tends to translate to more interesting work and/or more money) if you're heavily quoted by other researchers.

Of course, the easiest way to be heavily quoted, unless you're already a highly established scientist, is by being contrarian/provocative, so that other people feel like they need to debunk your writings.

I'd think in this case it's about the response. What group of epidemiologists wouldn't get a sense of power, prestige than having daily Whitehouse meetings, continual press coverage, and effectively setting public policy based solely on their subject of expertise? That essentially hits on all three points I gave.

The issue is that they'll fail to appropriately consider the broader long-term effects of lockdowns. Most of the advice and policy also wasn't scientifically based in that the effectiveness wasn't well researched, so H-factor scores wouldn't play much of a role.

> I'd think in this case it's about the response. What group of epidemiologists wouldn't get a sense of power, prestige than having daily Whitehouse meetings, continual press coverage, and effectively setting public policy based solely on their subject of expertise? That essentially hits on all three points I gave.

That is definitely one possibility. The other possibility being that a group of contrarian epidemiologists would get power and prestige by claiming that the first group is biased. This has happened in France, with Raoult growing a cult-like following.

> Most of the advice and policy also wasn't scientifically based in that the effectiveness wasn't well researched, so H-factor scores wouldn't play much of a role.

Well, in that case, H-factor-style scores wouldn't play much of a role because this was not research but policy.

I seem to remember that the effectiveness of lockdowns on diseases has been pretty much proved way before covid. Of course, their effect on economy may not have been studied quite as well :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com