One lesson (no pun intended) of the academic environment is that no, it doesn’t work that way. Some people are subject-matter experts, some are brilliant expositors, but while you can’t be a good expositor without a decent knowledge of the subject matter, you absolutely can be a world-leading scientist and at the same time completely rubbish at explaining your ideas. (Some areas are better at making use of such people than others.)
Good exposition deserves additional credit on top of subject expertise, is what I’m trying to say.
This also means that you will often find excellent easily digestible expositions of ideas from people who don't have a good grasp of the subject matter, which is problematic.
This particular topic, though, I do feel more strongly about than most I comment on here.
Technical exposition is an underappreciated art, and in many places an unrewarded one. How many star technical writers can you name, compared to star programmers? How much effort does writing a good review paper take, compared to an incremental research advance, and how much harder is it to publish one?
Halmos, one of the best expositors of (non-popular!) mathematics in at least a generation, quotes an anonymous mathematician in How to write mathematics: “All of us, I think, feel secretly that if we but bothered we could be really first-rate expositors”; the mathematician’s point being that nothing could be further from the truth. (Incidentally, it’s a bit startling how well Halmos’s principles map to the ones in Vonnegut’s How to write with style.)
I’m sensitive about this in part because I myself want to be good at exposition and never feel that I actually am. Still, personal hangups aside, if the guy is an expert and can communicate, with no tradeoff on either side, that’s rare enough—and must have needed work enough—that it should be celebrated.
this guy knows what he’s talking about. he has authority in his field. he has proven both theoretically and materially that his wisdom is high quality.
yet, videos from people with far less expertise on the subject matter will likely drown his out. over and over again i’ve seen the top videos on so many subjects repeating just plain wrong information but the “creator” says it with confidence so people just eat it up. even worse, so many times i’ve seen people in the comments try to nicely point out where the “creator” went wrong, and people go after the commenter for daring to imply this person on the magic screen might be misinformed.
it’s such a shame that being higher in the search says almost nothing about your knowledge on a subject and only means you’re better at manipulating the algorithm rather than having actual higher quality information.
i really wish that our searches would prioritize quality of information. at this point, years later, i think it’s pretty clear that the “wisdom of the crowd will shoot the highest quality to the top” has been proven to not be the case.
also, i don’t want to imply that amateurs can’t have valid and interesting perspectives, sometimes they might, just that being higher in search means quite literally nothing on wisdom of a subject—especially if a grifter can monetize off a trendy nuanced subject.
anyway, this video was incredible information. thx for sharing his background.
Use a free service, and the person providing it doesn't have an incentive to give you what you want.
Which is how we got current Google.
They prefer you to use the form "their take on reality" . Misinformation is bad! Point of view is good!
So when I see an add for say Kenwood's latest radios in QST magazine, what would be the disinformation being spread? Or an ad for House of Staunton chess sets in Chess Life magazine?
I think disinformation probably implies a level in malice that is not present (or rather, present in consumerist systems by default, and not specific to advertisers), but obviously trying to convince someone to purchase something which it might actually not be good for them to buy, is misinforming them.
If a friend told you to buy a product and you did and it sucked, you'd be upset at them. But when a company does it with an ad, no one gets upset, because we understand that ads are lying to us.
We don't expect that they're being honest.
Or put another way, we expect that they are misinforming us about our need for, and appreciation of, the product.
First, I (and many people that I know) do get upset when an ad misrepresents a product and we get burned. It happens all the time, and people complain about it constantly. You might argue this is wasted breath, but it still happens.
I would also say that while everyone accepts that ads are at a high risk for dishonesty, the vast majority of people live their lives assuming that ads convey some useful information, even if it's just the vague intent and target audience of the product. It's easy to pick out specific genres of ads that don't seem to do this, and ad rhetoric can often be complicated and interesting, but generally speaking they do try to convey some sort of genuine information about the product.
Saying that ads are fundamentally misinformation people because they are "obviously trying to convince someone to purchase something which might actually not be good for them to buy" seems like a reasonable criticism at first glance, but actually I think that's kind of a ridiculous standard. No one except my closest friends and family have any idea what might be "good for me to buy", and I am not so against the idea of basic commerce that I think it's useful to say that someone hawking their wares is "misinforming" the public simply because they're trying to sell to strangers.
This is not to say that the ad industry isn't infested with slimy people with perverse incentives. Of course it is. But advertising itself is a basic extension of human communication, and I think it's awfully cynical to say that any attempt to show someone why they might want to buy your product is spreading misinformation. I do believe that it's okay to advocate for something, and then let people decide for themselves if they agree. If it's not, then nearly all human discourse is an exercise in misinformation.
(Inb4 "actually, nearly all human discourse is misinformation")
To conflate those 2 as being remotely similar in levels of influence (even at an individual level) is insane.
Also, I'm not sure why you jumped to assuming that I apparently believe advertising shouldn't be allowed, just because I can acknowledge that it is based entirely on selfish intent by the ad creators?
All I said was that ads are a form of misinformation. You're the one drawing conclusions about what responses that must entail.
If you prefer to pretend it's not misinformation just because you apparently cannot reconcile that stance, and allowing ads to continue to exist, that's a "you" problem.
You said that ads are misinformation because they try to convince you to buy something that may or may not be in your best interest to buy. My response to this is that's a ridiculous definition of "misinformation," and I disagree with it strongly.
You said nothing about levels of influence, or about modern ad campaigns versus word-of-mouth advertising, or anything of the like. I couldn't have responded to these things even if I wanted to, because you didn't say them. All you said was that selfish motivation == misinformation, and that's wrong, and I disagree with it.
Of course I suspected that you wrote your comment because of angst against the manipulations of "modern ad campaigns," and not because you believe that's actually a useful definition of misinformation, and you just proved it for me. You're trying to redefine words so you can use those words to give your point more oomph.
I also said nothing about you believing advertising shouldn't be allowed. Why do you think I said this? I didn't even imply it. I only said I thought you were being cynical.
It's true that there's a massive gap between a vendor hawking their wares on the street and "modern ad campaigns and techniques." There is also an entire gradient between these two things, and you see examples all along this gradient if you actually pay attention to advertising. The existence of this gradient is why I take issue with your original comment.
No I didn't, even according to you:
> You said that ads are misinformation because they try to convince you to buy something that may or may not be in your best interest to buy
Correct. Which is true if the thing they say you should buy, you should not in fact buy.
> that's a ridiculous definition of "misinformation," and I disagree with it strongly
You don't like that definition because you don't think that pressuring someone to buy something, when you have a vested interest in that thing selling, is inherently wrong. Not everyone has to have the same opinions about business rights and ethics as you.
> You said nothing about levels of influence, or about modern ad campaigns versus word-of-mouth advertising, or anything of the like.
No, you brought that into the conversation:
> I am not so against the idea of basic commerce that I think it's useful to say that someone hawking their wares is "misinforming"
Before that, we were clearly talking about modern ads, not "someone hawking their wares" as part of "basic commerce", which is obviously far more expansive a discussion, and includes said individual sellers.
> not because you believe that's actually a useful definition of misinformation
I am not limiting "misinformation" to only that, I am including that within the umbrella of misinformation, because it is.
Misinformation is simply, "Untrue or incorrect information." You are the one trying to redefine it to exclude common forms of misinformation we're used to navigating.
> I also said nothing about you believing advertising shouldn't be allowed.
Not explicitly. What you said was
> "I do believe that it's okay to advocate for something, and then let people decide for themselves if they agree. If it's not..."
Which is an inherent implication that I do not think it's okay to do so. I do think it's okay, I just can acknowledge that it's usually misinformation. As I said, the issue here is you being unable to reconcile something being misinformation, and that thing still being allowed.
There’s an element of truth, but it is way too reductive. Are you of the mind that word of mouth is the only moral way to grow a business?
it doesn’t make it less of a shame. and it certainly shouldn’t stop us from wondering.
Google as one among competitors (read: pre-Android/~2005) still had to be a useful enough search engine to attract users.
Once their search share attained hegemony, user satisfaction deprioritized (relatively) and revenue was allowed to dominate.
And thus, we now get a Google who has little interest in weeding out SEO'd spam. (And not as in 'tweaking their algorithm' -- as in fundamentally detecting and delisting all recipe-story porn and answer-mills)
You can easily start a search engine using a different model. You’re going to struggle to compete with anything that prioritizes what users find popular.
Granted, it was a simpler problem then, given early web.
But the slide since (in the face of revenue counter-incentives) feels at best like ambivalence about objective value to user.
It’s in almost all topics now, from the Ukraine War to cooking.
And ancient aliens type stuff is all over the place - UFOs, pyramids, gov’t conspiracies of various forms, etc.
Not just YouTube of course, but very visible there.
https://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/301497...
I'm the (formerly) young guy who rented the 550 to the production team for a few days. Pretty fun story to be tied to the movie.