[flagged]
Wow, I find economist to be one of the best publications to read about global events. Can you say more about what you think they lie about?
Is The Economist Always Wrong?
171–180 of 189 posts
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, what? People were offended by that? It seemed an apt cover in light of the situation. For those unaware, the economist ran this [1] image after Biden’s historically disastrous debate in ‘24 (as a result of Biden’s age based senility being on full display after months of party and media complicity). [1] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/07/04/why-biden-must-...
I think people were probably offended by the lack of such covers relating to Trump's diminished mental acuity when it was on display for all to see in the brief period of 2015-present. (Not just The Economist, mind; almost every MSM outlet has mostly ignored Trump's mental inadequacy from the moment he came down the escalator. If they'd reported on it honestly from the start, there would be no Trump presidencies.)
Surely you don't think the two are equivalent, right?
Biden was clearly experiencing major cognitive decline over the course of his presidency. Trump was/is not. I've not seen any serious argument or evidence that Trump has experienced a cognitive decline, whereas the evidence for Biden's decline was his every public appearance. Are you being facetious, or is this your actual belief? If so, what is the evidence?
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#173> We used artificial intelligence to test the accuracy of our forecasts I like the disclosure at the top, saves time.
Saves time, as in "no need to read any further". The fact that a publication would think that using AI to "confirm" a forecast bodes poorly not only on the publication, but also on those who would rely on such a forecast.
Why?
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
What should you read instead?
I don’t think there’s any one thing or set of things you can read that will make you informed on all topics. Human knowledge is siloed and you need to already be well-informed to judge the quality of information (this is the cause of the dunning-Kruger effect, if you’re really bad at something you lack the tools to understand just how bad you are). So imo you have to accept you’ll always be ignorant of most topics an…
> So imo you have to accept you’ll always be ignorant of most topics and get comfortable with thinking “I don’t know”.
Ok but I have to (or rather - I am expected to) vote on those topics. And not just during the elections or referendums, but also figuratively with my wallet and attention. In other words, my actions will be driven by how (mis)informed I am.
And even though I am comfortable with being ignorant, from my experience other people aren't comfortable with me being ignorant. Saying "I don't know, I haven't thought about it" is often met with shock if not anger. I don't have the luxury of dropping those people from my life either.
As for the travel, the perspective of a tourist is different from a person who lives there even for a few months, much less a few years. I agree it beats reading third-party summaries, but I don't think it gives you a much better clarity.
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think there’s any one thing or set of things you can read that will make you informed on all topics. Human knowledge is siloed and you need to already be well-informed to judge the quality of information (this is the cause of the dunning-Kruger effect, if you’re really bad at something you lack the tools to understand just how bad you are). So imo you have to accept you’ll always be ignorant of most topics an…
> So imo you have to accept you’ll always be ignorant of most topics and get comfortable with thinking “I don’t know”. Ok but I have to (or rather - I am expected to) vote on those topics. And not just during the elections or referendums, but also figuratively with my wallet and attention. In other words, my actions will be driven by how (mis)informed I am. And even though I am comfortable with being ignorant, from m…
> Saying "I don't know, I haven't thought about it" is often met with shock if not anger. I don't have the luxury of dropping those people from my life either.
There's a softer middle ground. You could try to deflect or say that you'd rather not talk about it.
And honestly, it would be a pretty big issue for me if someone in my life got angry at me for saying "I don't know" or "I'm not sure".
Maybe it's the "I haven't thought about it part" that is triggering them? It sounds like you have thought about a lot of these things.. it's just that they are genuinely difficult in many cases.
But I hear you. I've had similar thoughts and struggle with it as well.
P.S. Btw, here's a big one: Finding common ground by agreeing on certain core facts or values is usually very appreciated. This alone can dissolve the tension much of the time, especially when done with humility and grace.
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#176This seems like a strange question to ask
Even a fool will be right sometimes
Why not just report the facts, and stop trying to predict the future
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
"lalitium" -- it says so, right above the text.
Perhaps you misunderstood. I know what the user’s username is. Since being “lalitium” alone doesn’t give one any authority here to give commands, hence my question.
Sorry, forgot the "/s"
My view is that anybody is free to give commands if they feel like it, just as I'm free to ignore 'em.
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So imo you have to accept you’ll always be ignorant of most topics and get comfortable with thinking “I don’t know”. Ok but I have to (or rather - I am expected to) vote on those topics. And not just during the elections or referendums, but also figuratively with my wallet and attention. In other words, my actions will be driven by how (mis)informed I am. And even though I am comfortable with being ignorant, from m…
> Saying "I don't know, I haven't thought about it" is often met with shock if not anger. I don't have the luxury of dropping those people from my life either. There's a softer middle ground. You could try to deflect or say that you'd rather not talk about it. And honestly, it would be a pretty big issue for me if someone in my life got angry at me for saying "I don't know" or "I'm not sure". Maybe it's the "I haven'…
Yes in theory it should be easier to get on with people if you yourself don’t hold many strong opinions.
Unless of course you’re dealing with a zealot who gets angry if you do anything other than passionately agree with them, but there’s not much you can do in that case anyway
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#179After reading their newspaper (their label, not mine) for years, I've come away with three revelations: A) More than gaining insight and staying abreast of events, what I was really purchasing was the /feeling/ of being in-the-know. B) Whenever I met with "certain" people, they were likely to also read The Economist which turned out to be another, tremendously handy means of anchoring conversation. C) The trade balan…
The economist is the only paper I read where articles on topics I know about are fair, balanced and grounded in science. The opposite of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.
Re: Is The Economist Always Wrong?
#180After reading their newspaper (their label, not mine) for years, I've come away with three revelations: A) More than gaining insight and staying abreast of events, what I was really purchasing was the /feeling/ of being in-the-know. B) Whenever I met with "certain" people, they were likely to also read The Economist which turned out to be another, tremendously handy means of anchoring conversation. C) The trade balan…
+1 on C. I actually started reading it back to front and have been having much more fun.
If you read it consistently you soon realize that every article has a short form summary in the front and long form article in the back, and sometimes a mid size as well, in the same edition.