> much less clear
I have a background in sociology and urban planning. It's very clear that DHH is not an expert on politics. His blog posts demonstrate a very elementary understanding of the topics he covers. He doesn't even understand statistics.
I have a background in sociology and urban planning. It's very clear that DHH is not an expert on politics. His blog posts demonstrate a very elementary understanding of the topics he covers. He doesn't even understand statistics.
What an interesting way to make it sound like that means anything. "Background" - how appropriately vague...
And how exactly does this make you an expert on European, and especially Danish, immigration, culture and vox populi?
I do agree "background" is vague, but I generally assume the minimal threshold to say that is something like a previous career, undergraduate degree, or graduate degree in the background. I personally wouldn't say I had a background in something I was only an amateur enthusiast of.
---
That being said, what on earth gives you the idea a substantial background in sociology WOULDN'T be relevant here?
Appeal to authority is a bias for a reason. In this case it wasn't even that well executed.
A "background in software development" (an HR or a marketing girl in the website design sweatshop) does not give enough relevance and authority to speak about the technical details of Linux kernel. Vice versa.
Anyway, all I was saying is that reading his posts as a somewhat informed reader leaves me with the impression that he doesn't have a deep understanding of these topics. I studied (25 years ago) many topics that he likes to tell us his thoughts about, such as systemic racism, consumer behavior, nationalism, how to read bar charts, etc. It would be pretty easy for many people to tear open his posts, but he doesn't enable comments.
Examples of these claims?
Crichton's Law: unwittingly serving as the best example of one's own snarky law.