It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
"Literally" in this context is just a form of hyperbole or intensifier. It has been used in that sense for centuries (objections to its being used in this way are far more recent).
Discourteous or rude is one of the dictionary meanings of ignorant.
Can you provide a reference?
In this fascinating 2005 National Public Radio interview Jesse Sheidlower, editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary, cites literary examples of the word literally being used to "intensify statements" as early as the 17th century and misused from the 19th century. But he says objections were only raised in the early 20th century. He said:
Still don't like that usage though
The Expert used to be a rare person who occasionally appeared in your life, earned your trust, and gave serious advice couched in careful wording that conveyed the complexity of the matter.
Now, experts are ubiquitous, make grand claims, and talk about their topic as if future events and outcomes are set in stone. They contradict each other, admit no area that they are less than absolutely certain, and ignore their failures or blame anything or anyone if the future doesn't precisely match their claim.
So Anti-knowledge has developed and there is a lot of it. All those times when the hordes of 'Experts' have got it wrong, often badly. Knowledge gained of a negative emotional experience is very strong, because that is the way our brain is hard-wired. The Experts may tell you that the "rustle in the bushes" is nothing bad but once you've experienced the Tiger leaping out at you, you will never believe those Experts again. And your Anti-knowledge will be clear and very strong evidence that the Experts were wrong before. So when Experts tell you something else, it might well be wrong again surely? Even though they are different Experts. That experience of the Tiger is extremely hard to ignore. Ignoring Experts in future is much easier.
Anti-knowledge is also reinforced by sharing experiences with others. And what is social media if not an experience-sharing indulgence-fest? The old media still plays its role too, setting expectations way too high for what Experts can do. For example, folks expect Doctors to have the diagnostic abilities of House, and Police to have the crime-solving abilities of CSI. And everyone knows someone who has been let down when such professionals aren't as effective as the Telly would suggest. Which simply builds more Anti-knowledge, borne of bad experience with Experts.
The answer is for Experts to earn trust instead of just demanding it, and show some humility when they are wrong. Folks need to lower their expectations of Experts too, and start accepting that the vast majority of what they see on Reality TV, even documentaries, is as much fiction as fact.
So a lot of folks don't get to have cake and eat it - hell, plenty of people on disability living allowance don't get enough to help with their dissabilities these days, let alone the dumb
Baby boomer generation members were able to buy property at a much lower percentage of income, they had much lower costs regarding education (again, as a percentage of income) and as there were fewer graduates the benefits of those reduced costs were easier and faster access to well/better paid jobs.
These self-same people label the current generation as overly entitled snowflakes wanting the moon on a stick - not realising they have two moons on solid gold sticks sitting spare in the basement in case the current moon on a stick breaks. Yes some hard working types managed to go poverty to wealth - the poverty gap is something that has widened since then...
I was able to parse that from his words and words that have been said before in a variety of places...
Sure, some scientists don't help themselves, when they will refuse to commit, (Stupid made up example to illustrate the point: "based on previous observations it is most likely that the rain will fall downwards") which leads to them being slated for not being sure, again the media want certainty.
Generally I haven't see experts "demanding trust" unreasonably. They demand to be taken seriously (not unreasonable if they are allowed to report their position) but the problem is that their messages are dumbed down, diluted, and cut off to the point that they *appear* to be making it up as they go along -- when really the media just doesn't want to report the real and genuine complexity. The media can't have it both ways - true expert judgement based on good research, with all it's nuances and subtleties, yet also a snappy soundbite.
Sounds like a decent balance overall then.
Think of someone who owns a Volvo for two years and has nothing but trouble with it - breakdowns, expensive repairs, utterly unreliable - and they then read an article where Experts say Volvos are very reliable. They then jump on social media and relate their experience with Volvos and how the Experts have got it wrong. Instantly, there are now many people aware of this person's experience with Volvos. Some of this Anti-knowledge will be picked up by others and relayed elsewhere to be spread around further. Some people respond supportively, especially those with similar experience. This especially reinforces the Anti-knowledge - "See! Its not just me!"
You and I know it is only one person's experience and therefore scientifically unrepresentative. But to them it is real precisely because it is borne of actual experience. It is not ignorance. They've actually lived it, you've never owned a Volvo!
The majority of the large number of happy Volvo owners will not bother replying to the rant on social media. When someone feels strongly about a topic, its just not worth the hassle trying to balance their views with your own happy experience. Social media is largely about sharing experiences with others. But there is no editing and rarely any context. One or two might say how their Volvo has never missed a beat. But, a quick look by someone who sees all this in response to a Google search will show some strong emotional views of 'Volvos are unreliable' together with a few weaker views that 'Volvos are reliable'.
So what does the Google-searcher take away from this? "Looks like a lot of people had bad experiences so I won't buy a Volvo".
It is easy to say that the Google-searcher should not draw that conclusion. But the vast majority of folks are not good at critical reading or analysis - if they were, Reality TV would never exist.
And so the Anti-knowledge spreads. And of course it wasn't even made up! Its real not fake. And it is often persuasive because of that - the author really did have two years of Volvo trouble and that is why there is so much emotion in what they say. And strong statements together with real emotion borne of experience is very influential.
Even though in the end it is only one person's experience of where 'they are right and the Experts are wrong', it is now validated by being preserved on social media and relayed by search engines.
Comments made in a chat down the pub used to disappear from memory - comments made on social media are memorialised forever.
Thanks.
By way of a comparison, I went to a local classic car show on Sunday. I lost count of the times I heard the phrase "Lotus - Lots of trouble, usually serious" muttered by passers by. I suspect none of them had ever owned one, and none were aware that in three years of ownership, it's never once broken down.
I suspect you'll be coming out of the deal £100 the richer.
Especially if you stop using the car and just leave it parked up, the head gasket will last forever and you'll be getting a tenner a month.