Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Mark Nadler on April 27, 2020, 10:27:47 pm
-
When the coronavirus panic set in I was traveling in Mexico. My school completely shut down and went on line. Instead of returning to Ohio, I decided to head to my second home
in Oahu. A course I teach on how to think economically spends a single class meeting on understanding the role of experts in giving advice. Listening to my neighbors, my children, and
most of mainstream media pleading with Trump and other politicians to listen to medical experts I have come to realize how few people understand the role of experts in giving advice. A few days ago I was in the post office listening to a woman bad mouth Trump for not kowtowing to medical experts. Personally, when it comes to managing this current disaster I really don't know if Trump has been a genius or a moron. What I do know is that criticism directed toward Trump (and the Swedes for not shuting down their economy) is misdirected. Below I explain why.
Recently I overheard a woman complaining to a friend about how President Trump would rather listen to his children about how to deal with the coronavirus rather than to health experts. I have heard similar complaints from CNN and MSNBC. She and much of the media suffer from a common misunderstanding over the role of experts. One should never listen to experts. Wise experts limit their advice on presenting the benefits and costs of different courses of action. Experts all suffer from the same defect: they wear blinders. Decision-makers such as presidents use expert knowledge as an input in making choices that require trade-offs. Given the goals and the culture of healthcare professionals, their best advice might have us hunkered down in our caves until the coronavirus reaches levels approaching zero. President Trump rightfully understands that at a certain level of coronavirus risk, it is better to let the economy reignite even if that policy kills a certain number of Americans. Everything carries an economic price, including human life.
Karm Redland
-
When the coronavirus panic set in I was traveling in Mexico. My school completely shut down and went on line. Instead of returning to Ohio, I decided to head to my second home
in Oahu. A course I teach on how to think economically spends a single class meeting on understanding the role of experts in giving advice. Listening to my neighbors, my children, and
most of mainstream media pleading with Trump and other politicians to listen to medical experts I have come to realize how few people understand the role of experts in giving advice. A few days ago I was in the post office listening to a woman bad mouth Trump for not kowtowing to medical experts. Personally, when it comes to managing this current disaster I really don't know if Trump has been a genius or a moron. What I do know is that criticism directed toward Trump (and the Swedes for not shuting down their economy) is misdirected. Below I explain why.
Recently I overheard a woman complaining to a friend about how President Trump would rather listen to his children about how to deal with the coronavirus rather than to health experts. I have heard similar complaints from CNN and MSNBC. She and much of the media suffer from a common misunderstanding over the role of experts. One should never listen to experts. Wise experts limit their advice on presenting the benefits and costs of different courses of action. Experts all suffer from the same defect: they wear blinders. Decision-makers such as presidents use expert knowledge as an input in making choices that require trade-offs. Given the goals and the culture of healthcare professionals, their best advice might have us hunkered down in our caves until the coronavirus reaches levels approaching zero. President Trump rightfully understands that at a certain level of coronavirus risk, it is better to let the economy reignite even if that policy kills a certain number of Americans. Everything carries an economic price, including human life.
Karm Redland
OK.....your life first.
-
Liars, damned liars, and experts.
-
Liars, damned liars, and experts.
Forgot to mention the bartender down the street where you get all your advice. Don't trust them experts...best listen to morons. On second thought...you do support Trump...so I can see where you get your guidance. Just take it easy on that Lysol, I heard it goes down better with a beer chaser.
-
If you want to discuss the role of experts, do it here. If you want to bicker about politics, there's a playpen waiting for you.
Jeremy
-
Experts all suffer from the same defect: they wear blinders.
That's a big assumption. It leads to a bit of a circular argument, though, doesn't it? A bit like saying, what these people say is not trustworthy, therefore I don't trust them.
Moreover, your assumption does not at all match my experience. I have not met many experts who wear blinders, quite the opposite, the ones I've known are usually quite well-rounded. At worst, their knowledge about matters outside their primary domain was no worse than anyone else's.
However, I am certain that some experts exist that behave as you assert, they're not that hard to spot. The thing is, though, even non-experts wear blinders. There are generalists who are good at assimilating different viewpoints, and there are others who are bone stupid.
-
98% of the experts were not able to predict the 2008 recession. Why? The facts were available to everyone. A lot of experts just repeat what other so-called experts say. It's laziness. They don't independently do their own research. So it becomes he said she said hearsay. Even when you research, you always have to rely on other people's research. GIGO Garbage in-garbage out. If the original facts are incorrect, then the predictions are defective. So everyone gets it wrong.
Keeping it LULA oriented, it's like the rules of photography. It is because we say it is.
-
That's a big assumption. It leads to a bit of a circular argument, though, doesn't it? A bit like saying, what these people say is not trustworthy, therefore I don't trust them.
Moreover, your assumption does not at all match my experience. I have not met many experts who wear blinders, quite the opposite, the ones I've known are usually quite well-rounded. At worst, their knowledge about matters outside their primary domain was no worse than anyone else's.
However, I am certain that some experts exist that behave as you assert, they're not that hard to spot. The thing is, though, even non-experts wear blinders. There are generalists who are good at assimilating different viewpoints, and there are others who are bone stupid.
The last lot just require a little online exposure, and voila: naked!
-
That's a big assumption. It leads to a bit of a circular argument, though, doesn't it? A bit like saying, what these people say is not trustworthy, therefore I don't trust them.
Moreover, your assumption does not at all match my experience. I have not met many experts who wear blinders, quite the opposite, the ones I've known are usually quite well-rounded. At worst, their knowledge about matters outside their primary domain was no worse than anyone else's.
However, I am certain that some experts exist that behave as you assert, they're not that hard to spot. The thing is, though, even non-experts wear blinders. There are generalists who are good at assimilating different viewpoints, and there are others who are bone stupid.
No, it is not.
Experts, by definition, have a narrow focus. Maybe they will have additional knowledge on other fields, but their focus, when it comes to action, is on a narrow field. They have blinders on when it comes to action.
Politics is not a science, it's an art. Politicians need to balance the input of all experts, not just medical, which is what many people right now are suggesting.
-
Experts, by definition, have a narrow focus.
No, you and the OP are just asserting that. But because you both want to believe it, you accept it as fact.
-
No, you and the OP are just asserting that. But because you both want to believe it, you accept it as fact.
You can not be an expert on a wide range of topics, by definition. It is just not possible. Experts have a narrow field of focus, hence the blinders.
Definition, an expert is a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. Particular being not broad.
-
You can not be an expert on a wide range of topics, by definition. It is just not possible.
What about Alan?
-
What about Alan?
Post of the month.
-
You can not be an expert on a wide range of topics, by definition. It is just not possible. Experts have a narrow field of focus, hence the blinders.
Definition, an expert is a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. Particular being not broad.
Sure experts are "experts" in their field which can be narrow...but that does not mean in any way they are totally ignorant in other fields. I know surgeons that are experts in kidney surgeries but know a hell of a lot more than me about anything else to do with the human body. This friend of mine is also amazing with hockey trivia.
You seem to categorize an expert as some nerd that only has one very fine focus in life...that's just false.
-
Sure experts are "experts" in their field which can be narrow...but that does not mean in any way they are totally ignorant in other fields. I know surgeons that are experts in kidney surgeries but know a hell of a lot more than me about anything else to do with the human body. This friend of mine is also amazing with hockey trivia.
You seem to categorize an expert as some nerd that only has one very fine focus in life...that's just false.
There are even some doctors and dentists who happen to be also good photographers.
-
Sure experts are "experts" in their field which can be narrow...but that does not mean in any way they are totally ignorant in other fields. I know surgeons that are experts in kidney surgeries but know a hell of a lot more than me about anything else to do with the human body. This friend of mine is also amazing with hockey trivia.
You seem to categorize an expert as some nerd that only has one very fine focus in life...that's just false.
Sure, but in a crisis they will revert back to their field of expertise as being the most important, to them.
-
Sure, but in a crisis they will revert back to their field of expertise as being the most important, to them.
Kind of depends on the nature of the crisis don't you think?
-
Sure, but in a crisis they will revert back to their field of expertise as being the most important, to them.
And you know this how????
-
As always, it depends.
There are various areas of expertise. If the field is less limited, like response to pandemics, they are actually pretty well rounded on what it implies in other fields too; being less narrow there is more uncertainty but they are still better than the next person who doesn't deal with this.
You are correct that the decisions should be made by listening to various experts and come up with the best compromise. However this implies listening to and trusting those experts. If you disregard what they say and decide to just go with your gut, you might as well not pretend that you used experts in your decision making.
-
Post of the month.
+1
-
And you know this how????
Because that is human nature. you stick to what you know.
Dr Fauci was asked point blank if he took into account the economic concerns with the shut down. He said no. That pretty much sums it up. Dr. Fauci is primarily concerned with the pandemic, not the economics by his own admission. That is why you need many different experts giving opinions that all need to be weighed by one leader.
-
What I do know is that criticism directed toward Trump (and the Swedes for not shuting down their economy) is misdirected.
Sweden's coronavirus policy has been entirely dictated by public health experts — the politicians don't get a look in. Sweden's whole administrative system is founded on a deference to expertise. Sweden is run by experts.
-
What about Alan?
Which one?
Jeremy
-
Because that is human nature. you stick to what you know.
Dr Fauci was asked point blank if he took into account the economic concerns with the shut down. He said no. That pretty much sums it up. Dr. Fauci is primarily concerned with the pandemic, not the economics by his own admission. That is why you need many different experts giving opinions that all need to be weighed by one leader.
Yes except that leader does not take the advice from experts because "he's really, really smart...at least that is what he's been told". His totally off the wall comments are always needing to be mopped up by the experts. Sort of like the clown walking behind the horses in a parade cleaning up all the shit that has been dumped.
-
Yes except that leader does not take the advice from experts because "he's really, really smart...at least that is what he's been told". His totally off the wall comments are always needing to be mopped up by the experts. Sort of like the clown walking behind the horses in a parade cleaning up all the shit that has been dumped.
Only every expert interviewed said that their advice was taken, repeatably.
-
Only every expert interviewed said that their advice was taken, repeatably.
Then why all the mop up after the news conference?
-
Dr Fauci was asked point blank if he took into account the economic concerns with the shut down. He said no.
Of course, because he was not asked about the economic concerns since that is not his field of expertise.
Geez, how hard can that be to grasp?
That is why you need many different experts giving opinions that all need to be weighed by one leader.
Correct, a leader who can then make an informed decision, not based on a hunch, but on expert advice.
-
Which one?
Klein
-
The original assertion that all experts wear blinders is absurd on the face of it, as is every assertion about "all people." It a comfort only to bigots, and is similar in form to "black people are lazy," or "white men can't jump." I'm currently re-reading "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin, a Yale professor who won the Pulitzer Prize for the book, which concerns the effects of oil on world history. He is possibly the greatest current authority ("expert") on the economics of oil. Go read about him on Wikipedia and tell me that he wears blinders -- and this is just a guy who I happen to be reading right now. He is not atypical. The thing about most experts is, they're smart people; and most smart people are expert in something. That does not mean that they wear blinders. In fact, I don't even know why I'm bothering to write this; the original assertion is so stupid it makes my teeth hurt.
-
Of course, because he was not asked about the economic concerns since that is not his field of expertise.
Geez, how hard can that be to grasp?
Correct, a leader who can then make an informed decision, not based on a hunch, but on expert advice.
Exactly what I am getting at, experts are used for their narrow field of expertise. Leaders need to consult many different experts, which is unlike the situation the media has created now insisting that we only listen to one kind of expert, medical.
-
The original assertion that all experts wear blinders is absurd on the face of it, as is every assertion about "all people." It a comfort only to bigots, and is similar in form to "black people are lazy," or "white men can't jump." I'm currently re-reading "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin, a Yale professor who won the Pulitzer Prize for the book, which concerns the effects of oil on world history. He is possibly the greatest current authority ("expert") on the economics of oil. Go read about him on Wikipedia and tell me that he wears blinders -- and this is just a guy who I happen to be reading right now. He is not atypical. The thing about most experts is, they're smart people; and most smart people are expert in something. That does not mean that they wear blinders. In fact, I don't even know why I'm bothering to write this; the original assertion is so stupid it makes my teeth hurt.
No, the comparison you made in the first couple sentence are not the same John and has nothing to do with bigotry. It is by definition. It is not the equivalent of saying what you wrote but more like "black people typically have darker skin then white people," which is true the majority of the time. Just like experts only have an expertise on their narrow field of study, the majority of the time.
I specialize in architectural photography, which is my expertise. Now, am I better then the average person at shooting lifestyle, absolutely, but I am not an expert by any stretch in that type of photography. I am not better then a lifestyle photographer at it, and assuming so would not be bigotry. It would be a very safe and natural assumption.
So I would highly recommend that if you want to learn about lifestyle photography, to talk to a lifestyle photographer. Just like if you want to take into account the economic effects of this, talk to a economist because a medical expert will not have an expertise in economics.
Same difference as to what we are talking about here.
-
No, the comparison you made in the first couple sentence are not the same John and has nothing to do with bigotry. It is by definition. It is not the equivalent of saying what you wrote but more like "black people typically have darker skin then white people," which is true the majority of the time. Just like experts only have an expertise on their narrow field of study, the majority of the time.
I specialize in architectural photography, which is my expertise. Now, am I better then the average person at shooting lifestyle, absolutely, but I am not an expert by any stretch in that type of photography. I am not better then a lifestyle photographer at it, and assuming so would not be bigotry. It would be a very safe and natural assumption.
So I would highly recommend that if you want to learn about lifestyle photography, to talk to a lifestyle photographer.
Same difference as to what we are talking about here.
You have that completely wrong, Joe. You are an expert in architectural photography. Does that mean that you can't appreciate lifestyle? Does that mean you can't argue cogently about the need to open the economy (an argument which has nothing to do with photography?) Does that mean you can't understand cheese-making, because all your "expert" ability is used up on photography?
This is the old cliche, "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." That's something a fork-lift operator might believe, but nobody who is actually smart.
What the original poster is asserting is the "experts' can't see past their expertise to other concerns. "They always wear blinders." That suggests the doctors only think about medical concerns, but that's obviously incorrect -- we have doctors, "experts", arguing that we should open the economy, and arguing it on skeptical media networks like CNN and in the Times and the WSJ. Very smart people, and most experts are smart, have, in my experience, a wide range of interests, and are often expert in more than one thing. I once knew a surgeon who was an expert on Persian carpets, for Christ's sakes. My wife was once on an orchestra board, where I met a radiologist who was one of the best violinists in the city. Anyway, I'm done with this thread. Too dumb.
-
Just to give an example of how I feel experts goof with other subject areas, here is a personal example I deal with all of the time.
I am an architectural photographer, and as such, I always prefer to keep the vertical lines of buildings straight and parallel, with the exception of extreme upward views. It is such an engrained part of my process that when the lines are off, it is the first thing I notice in an image. I have been doing this for like 15 years and it not something I can turn off really.
Now with shooting people, this is not a real concern. However, if I am asked to shoot someone, I instinctively go out of my way to make sure any vertical building lines in the background are parallel. I know it does not matter when shooting a person, but I cant help get annoyed by it.
I see the same thing when a lifestyle shooter attempts to photograph interiors. Their lighting is totally off, concentrating on front lighting the room like you would with a person.
This same thing happens with all experts. You get so entrenched in dealing with your narrow area that when you look at another, you instinctively entrench back into what is important to your expertise even if it is not important to the new subject you are looking at. It's human nature.
-
You have that completely wrong, Joe. You are an expert in architectural photography. Does that mean that you can't appreciate lifestyle? Does that mean you can't argue cogently about the need to open the economy (an argument which has nothing to do with photography?) Does that mean you can't understand cheese-making, because all your "expert" ability is used up on photography?
This is the old cliche, "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." That's something a fork-lift operator might believe, but nobody who is actually smart.
What the original poster is asserting is the "experts' can't see past their expertise to other concerns. "They always wear blinders." That suggests the doctors only think about medical concerns, but that's obviously incorrect -- we have doctors, "experts", arguing that we should open the economy, and arguing it on skeptical media networks like CNN and in the Times and the WSJ. Very smart people, and most experts are smart, have, in my experience, a wide range of interests, and are often expert in more than one thing. I once knew a surgeon who was an expert on Persian carpets, for Christ's sakes. My wife was once on an orchestra board, where I met a radiologist who was one of the best violinists in the city. Anyway, I'm done with this thread. Too dumb.
Perhaps I dont feel as strongly about the OP with the blinders statement, but people revert back to what is important to their expertise, not what may be important to the new subject at hand.
Basic understanding of a subject (like cheese making) does not make me an expert by any stretch. Although I can argue for opening the economy, and I have my preferences for sure, I would not advise anyone to hire me to consult on the subject.
Another great example is when JFK hired Robert McNamara, who was a very smart person indeed. However, as a military leader, he was truly horrible. He was the one that coined the phrase, "there is no such thing as strategy, only crisis management." He reverted back to efficiency in consumer manufacturing (his expertise) when in charge and took our military equipment from the world's best to the worse. It was not until he was gone and new leaders in the military had the fortitude to accept everything they were doing was wrong that "The Suck" finally started to end.
-
Sure experts are "experts" in their field which can be narrow...but that does not mean in any way they are totally ignorant in other fields. I know surgeons that are experts in kidney surgeries but know a hell of a lot more than me about anything else to do with the human body. This friend of mine is also amazing with hockey trivia. You seem to categorize an expert as some nerd that only has one very fine focus in life...that's just false.
Sure, but in a crisis they will revert back to their field of expertise as being the most important, to them.
Because that is human nature. you stick to what you know.
Boy do I know that is true. I have an expertise in photography. Last month I was playing frisbee with my dog. He ran into the street and was hit by a car. I ran out to him and could tell he had a broken leg and was bleeding internally. Obviously a crisis. The funny thing is the only thing I could think about was what shutter speed and aperture I would use to take a picture of the scene. It is just human nature to revert to your area expertise. Fortunately, my wife, who is not an expert at anything, gently lifted the dog up and took him to the vet. Luckily, he’s doing fine now.. There are really downsides to being an expert.
-
Boy do I know that is true. I have an expertise in photography. Last month I was playing frisbee with my dog. He ran into the street and was hit by a car. I ran out to him and could tell he had a broken leg and was bleeding internally. Obviously a crisis. The funny thing is the only thing I could think about was what shutter speed and aperture I would use to take a picture of the scene. It is just human nature to revert to your area expertise. Fortunately, my wife, who is not an expert at anything, gently lifted the dog up and took him to the vet. Luckily, he’s doing fine now.. There are really downsides to being an expert.
Dont be silly.
This is more like an equivalent example.
A physicist, an engineer and a mathematician were all in a hotel sleeping when a fire broke out in their respective rooms.
The physicist woke up, saw the fire, ran over to his desk, pulled out his CRC, and began working out all sorts of fluid dynamics equations. After a couple minutes, he threw down his pencil, got a graduated cylinder out of his suitcase, and measured out a precise amount of water. He threw it on the fire, extinguishing it, with not a drop wasted, and went back to sleep.
The engineer woke up, saw the fire, ran into the bathroom, turned on the faucets full-blast, flooding out the entire apartment, which put out the fire, and went back to sleep.
The mathematician woke up, saw the fire, ran over to his desk, began working through theorems, lemmas, hypotheses , you-name-it, and after a few minutes, put down his pencil triumphantly and exclaimed, "I have *proven* that I *can* put the fire out!" He then went back to sleep.
-
Which one?
Jeremy
The one you don't berate.
Oh, wait...
-
Dont be silly.
This is more like an equivalent example.
A physicist, an engineer and a mathematician were all in a hotel sleeping when a fire broke out in their respective rooms.
The physicist woke up, saw the fire, ran over to his desk, pulled out his CRC, and began working out all sorts of fluid dynamics equations. After a couple minutes, he threw down his pencil, got a graduated cylinder out of his suitcase, and measured out a precise amount of water. He threw it on the fire, extinguishing it, with not a drop wasted, and went back to sleep.
The engineer woke up, saw the fire, ran into the bathroom, turned on the faucets full-blast, flooding out the entire apartment, which put out the fire, and went back to sleep.
The mathematician woke up, saw the fire, ran over to his desk, began working through theorems, lemmas, hypotheses , you-name-it, and after a few minutes, put down his pencil triumphantly and exclaimed, "I have *proven* that I *can* put the fire out!" He then went back to sleep.
You do know that your example is a joke, don't you, because it is not altogehter clear from your other posts that you do?
-
You do know that your example is a joke, don't you, because it is not altogehter clear from your other posts that you do?
Yes, of course I do, just like yours was as well. Or at least I hope so, for I hate to have an heart attack with only you in the room if it was not.
I stand by my other posts though. Just like McNamara destroyed the US military by going back to his prior expertise of efficiency, most others will do the same thing.
-
What about Alan?
Thanks for the compliment. :-*
-
Sure experts are "experts" in their field which can be narrow...but that does not mean in any way they are totally ignorant in other fields. I know surgeons that are experts in kidney surgeries but know a hell of a lot more than me about anything else to do with the human body. This friend of mine is also amazing with hockey trivia.
You seem to categorize an expert as some nerd that only has one very fine focus in life...that's just false.
Doctors can't drive. They're also cheap. Must be because they can\'t calculate the tip right. :)
-
There are even some doctors and dentists who happen to be also good photographers.
That's because they can afford Leicas. :)
-
As always, it depends.
There are various areas of expertise. If the field is less limited, like response to pandemics, they are actually pretty well rounded on what it implies in other fields too; being less narrow there is more uncertainty but they are still better than the next person who doesn't deal with this.
You are correct that the decisions should be made by listening to various experts and come up with the best compromise. However this implies listening to and trusting those experts. If you disregard what they say and decide to just go with your gut, you might as well not pretend that you used experts in your decision making.
Drs' Birx and Fauci are not experts in economics and business. I don't recall either one of them posturing on it at any of the news conferences. Trump seem to rely on his own experience in that areas as well as his economic team of experts. EVen ciproration in science have financial and operationsla and marketing managers in addition to research and science managers. It's not that difficult to understand unless you you hate Trump. Then you want to only use the science experts advice so you can beat him over the head with it.
-
The one you don't berate.
Oh, wait...
Eh?
Jeremy
-
Had a friend who once defined an "expert" as "a drip under pressure."
-
Drs' Birx and Fauci are not experts in economics and business. I don't recall either one of them posturing on it at any of the news conferences. Trump seem to rely on his own experience in that areas as well as his economic team of experts. EVen ciproration in science have financial and operationsla and marketing managers in addition to research and science managers. It's not that difficult to understand unless you you hate Trump. Then you want to only use the science experts advice so you can beat him over the head with it.
You are skating on extremely thin ice, Alan.
Jeremy
-
You are skating on extremely thin ice, Alan.
Jeremy
What do you disagree with? That Birx and Fauci are not experts in business? That Trump used experts from other disciplines to help make his decisions? That companies do similarly? That people here only take science experts advice on what to do about the virus rather than getting input from economic experts as well?
-
It's not that difficult to understand unless you you hate Trump. Then you want to only use the science experts advice so you can beat him over the head with it.
You are skating on extremely thin ice, Alan.
What do you disagree with?
I can't speak for Jeremy, but I don't think the issue is disagreement; rather it's your apparent compulsion to inject your repetitive political opinions, dubious conspiracy theories, unfounded apocalyptic predictions, and irrelevant rhetorical questions into threads that are, at least ostensibly, intended for rational discussion of issues relating to the pandemic we are experiencing.
You have the "playpen" for your comments―a thread that was started (by you) expressly for the purpose of letting people blow off steam in posts that don't belong in other threads.
Actually, I read almost everything you post, no matter how preposterous or even downright bizarre it seems to me, because I think you represent a particular strain of neo-populist opinion that is important for the rest of us to understand―not only here in the States but in many other countries, democratic and authoritarian, as well.
However, please confine your screeds to the thread that was created expressly for them. You won't be deprived of your emotional outlet and the rest of us won't have to wade through your extraneous posts to find those that are responsive to the subject at hand.
-
I can't speak for Jeremy, but I don't think the issue is disagreement; rather it's your apparent compulsion to inject your repetitive political opinions, dubious conspiracy theories, unfounded apocalyptic predictions, and irrelevant rhetorical questions into threads that are, at least ostensibly, intended for rational discussion of issues relating to the pandemic we are experiencing.
You have the "playpen" for your comments―a thread that was started (by you) expressly for the purpose of letting people blow off steam in posts that don't belong in other threads.
Actually, I read almost everything you post, no matter how preposterous or even downright bizarre it seems to me, because I think you represent a particular strain of neo-populist opinion that is important for the rest of us to understand―not only here in the States but in many other countries, democratic and authoritarian, as well.
However, please confine your screeds to the thread that was created expressly for them. You won't be deprived of your emotional outlet and the rest of us won't have to wade through your extraneous posts to find those that are responsive to the subject at hand.
Chris this thread is full of opposing viewpoints by many people beside me including yours. To restrict me is just an attempt to shut up people you disagree with.
-
To restrict me is just an attempt to shut up people you disagree with.
That comment alone so exemplifies Chris Kern’s post above.
What total utter claptrap.
-
That comment alone so exemplifies Chris Kern’s post above.
What total utter claptrap.
Very classy. Like Chris, you'd like to shut me up too.
-
Very classy. Like Chris, you'd like to shut me up too.
No, I'd like you to post less than the 30 times a day you've been averaging recently, interrupting threads with your knee-jerk, poorly considered commentary and particularly misrepresenting others to suit your own peculiar agenda. Your reply to Chris Kern being a case in point - yet another 'make me the victim' attempt to divert attention from a polite, appeal to reason.
Clearly water on a duck's back.
-
Very classy. Like Chris, you'd like to shut me up too.
Knock it off, Alan. You're making the conservative point of view look ridiculous -- at least to those who can't discriminate between bloviation and serious discussion.
-
Any decision that involves risk is ultimately subjective. Some of us are more risk averse than othesr and thus will make
different decisions given the same information. Experts cannot provide us with answers to questions that involve tradeoffs: quicker economic recovery
vs. the number of additional lives lost because of an earlier reopening of the economy. I will believe that experts do not wear blinders when admirals
testify that we need fewer aircraft carriers and more modern highschools. Politicians, at least those that have been trained to think rationally, understand
that they must integrate expert opinion into a choice that is ultimately subjective.
karm
-
I can't speak for Jeremy, but I don't think the issue is disagreement; rather it's your apparent compulsion to inject your repetitive political opinions, dubious conspiracy theories, unfounded apocalyptic predictions, and irrelevant rhetorical questions into threads that are, at least ostensibly, intended for rational discussion of issues relating to the pandemic we are experiencing.
You have the "playpen" for your comments―a thread that was started (by you) expressly for the purpose of letting people blow off steam in posts that don't belong in other threads.
Actually, I read almost everything you post, no matter how preposterous or even downright bizarre it seems to me, because I think you represent a particular strain of neo-populist opinion that is important for the rest of us to understand―not only here in the States but in many other countries, democratic and authoritarian, as well.
However, please confine your screeds to the thread that was created expressly for them. You won't be deprived of your emotional outlet and the rest of us won't have to wade through your extraneous posts to find those that are responsive to the subject at hand.
+1 (+ complements for the polite reaction ...).
-
Any choice that involves risk is subjective. In the case of the coronavirus a national leader must make tradeoffs
between damamging their macroeconomy and increasing deaths from the coronavirus. There is
no right answer to where this tradeoff should be made -- it depends on the risk aversion of the decision-maker.
Concerning earlier comments:
1. If you train a person to be a hammer that person will see the world as nails needing hammering. This is what I mean by saying
that experts have blinders. Very few health experts are also macroeconomic economists who can appreciate the havoc that will follow
a collapsing economy.
2. Expert opinion has value as an input in decision-making. Military experts should not determine the size of a country's military budget. Educators
should determine the size of a country's education budget. Police should determine the size of a country's police force. All of these choices should be made by
politically elected officials.
3. In the case of President Trump, the claim that he is not listening to health experts is meaningless. President Trump must integrate the views of multiple experts
in different areas of expertise and reach a decision. I do not have the foggiest idea whether the choices he has made are smart or stupid. In fact, no one knows!