161–170 of 256 posts
You might even call it a dramatic story! :-)
Joking aside: I found this very interesting, probably because it's a topic I have literally zero exposure to normally. Now I'd like to hear the other side.
I don't think "Stories are bad for your intelligence" is the right conclusion here, more like "ideologically motivated thinking is bad for your intelligence". As another piece of evidence for this I can recall from Superforecasters that the ones who did the worst at forecasting were ideologically motivated people and people with "one big idea".
Story telling is a tool which can be misused to make wrong or bad things memorable.
> Bulstrode hasn’t yet responded to Jelf or Howes in public, but it’s hard to see how her paper can be creditably defended. > I doubt that Bulstrode set out to deceive. No, I think she did. If your intentions are good, you would address the concerns and correct the record. Those around her have a _duty_ to strongly encourage her to do so, otherwise they are complicit. > It’s one thing for a young and passionate acade…
They are leaving academia and receiving a minimum of double salary in the private sector.
We just have to look to History channel to see this effect on the wider public, it was only a matter of time.
The History Channel is entertainment, it never was anything else, especially history.
So if you want to indulge in fantasies of twisted minds about how the world works read literature. If you want to improve your model of reality read a coursebook or a manual.
Ironically this article is in itself a compelling narrative. You might even call it a dramatic story! :-) Joking aside: I found this very interesting, probably because it's a topic I have literally zero exposure to normally. Now I'd like to hear the other side.
I would find this piece more convincing if it had sampled stories from different sources in service of its thesis rather than focusing on a single work the author finds particularly galling, as there is no shortage of fictional narratives anywhere — look no further than US state-approved high-school history textbooks. Given the narrowness of the material cited, this piece seems to me like unequal application of skept…
Anytime school textbooks are mentioned I feel the urge to refer anyone who'll listen to the relevant chapter of "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman" Feynman is popular around here and rightly so. Blatant corruption from top to bottom is the norm, it would seem. Feynman also loathed psychology and gave it as an example of "Cargo-cult science." Last I heard every single first year psych texbook contained the Stanford pri…
I don't think "Stories are bad for your intelligence" is the right conclusion here, more like "ideologically motivated thinking is bad for your intelligence". As another piece of evidence for this I can recall from Superforecasters that the ones who did the worst at forecasting were ideologically motivated people and people with "one big idea".
You don't want to over-value predicting non-extreme events, you need that Israeli 10th man to persuade others of the improbable to ensure your plan is resilient. The insightful ideologue will be right about the intentions of a Hitler... but they also predict a few too many Hitlers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The History Channel is entertainment, it never was anything else, especially history.
It was always dramaticised and perhaps from a certain point of view. But they've taken it to the next level, just look at ancient aliens.
But yes, this whole edutainment thing got way way to far.
Edit: Or aren't they? I think there might be an ancient pyramid under some glacier on some antarctic island...