Interesting, I didn't realize that kind of thing happened over at 4Chan.
BTW, pertaining the "research", I agree, that is a very strange phenomenon, even most of the popular YouTube personalities, in the prepper and/or conspiracy genre, talk about having done research, and I imagine their version of research is exactly the same.
On the contrary... I do think that "research" can be achieved via a set of reasoning skills, rather than a specific set of activities and/or inputs. For example, a priori research might mean simply taking whatever corroborating information you can glean from various sources (all of whom may be simply regurgitating secondhand a posteriori information from the same source), and coming to novel conclusions based on logic. Because each of the sources will have a different understanding of the source information, developed in the abstractions they've built up over the years, in their reticular activating system (the map is not the territory), your own logic system might be able to the still a more correct truth than what can be gleaned from the original source.
An example of this can be described with regards to the Kyle Rittenhouse self-defense shooting:
Original Research (A Posteriori)
If you had access to every camera angle at the highest resolution available from the original sources, and you were being objective about what you saw, and you had decent spatial reasoning capabilities, as well as a pretty good understanding of the relevant self-defense legislation and case law, you would probably come to the conclusion that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, as commonly defined by courts in the US. This would be an example of actual, original research.
Brainwashing
If, instead, you watched YouTube commentators analyze and comment on the shooting, and you came to your conclusion based on those commentators and the selected clips they played, you would likely determine whether or not Kyle acted in self-defense based on your bias. For example, if you watched The Young Turks, you would likely come away thinking Kyle Rittenhouse was guilty, while, if you watched donut operator, you would likely come away thinking Kyle Rittenhouse was not guilty. This would be an example of basically not doing any actual research or thinking.
Secondary Research (A Priori)
The third scenario, which I'm proposing adds value, involves a bit of both of the above, the former (watching original footage) for the purposes of being able to fact check statements and ideas, and the latter for the purpose of introducing yourself to ideas you wouldn't have, otherwise, come to know (relevant case law, things you may not know about, such as "stand your ground", etc.). Obviously, if you're not very diligent about your understanding of the original footage and/or the analyses that you watch, then, at best, your interpretation is subject to the same shortcomings that you would expect in a "byzantine generals problem" scenario. But if this is what you do, you quote research" by consuming information in thinking critically about the source and the arguments, I think that may well provide just as much, or more, value when compared to only original research.
One might be tempted to leave that a posteriori information (e.g., viewing the original video) is also necessary for this mode of research, but the court system proves that second hand accounts can be just as valuable. Secondarily, once you've established a source that you can trust, or in which you distrust, some trusted information can be gleaned purely from secondhand accounts. For example, if CNN says something is definitively true and seems to be pressing the point and trying to convince the viewer, one can be assured that the inverse of this information is likely true, or at the very least, the information is suspect. Simply using that reasoning, while watching CNN, can, in fact, introduce new, a priori information to your mind.
Interesting, I didn't realize that kind of thing happened over at 4Chan.
BTW, pertaining the quote research", I agree, that is a very strange phenomenon, even most of the popular YouTube personalities, in the prepper and/or conspiracy genre, talk about having done research, and I imagine their version of research is exactly the same.
On the contrary... I do think that "research" can be achieved via a set of reasoning skills, rather than a specific set of activities and/or inputs. For example, a priori research might mean simply taking whatever corroborating information you can glean from various sources (all of whom may be simply regurgitating secondhand a posteriori information from the same source), and coming to novel conclusions based on logic. Because each of the sources will have a different understanding of the source information, developed in the abstractions they've built up over the years, in their reticular activating system (the map is not the territory), your own logic system might be able to the still a more correct truth than what can be gleaned from the original source.
An example of this can be described with regards to the Kyle Rittenhouse self-defense shooting:
Original Research (A Posteriori)
If you had access to every camera angle at the highest resolution available from the original sources, and you were being objective about what you saw, and you had decent spatial reasoning capabilities, as well as a pretty good understanding of the relevant self-defense legislation and case law, you would probably come to the conclusion that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, as commonly defined by courts in the US. This would be an example of actual, original research.
Brainwashing
If, instead, you watched YouTube commentators analyze and comment on the shooting, and you came to your conclusion based on those commentators and the selected clips they played, you would likely determine whether or not Kyle acted in self-defense based on your bias. For example, if you watched The Young Turks, you would likely come away thinking Kyle Rittenhouse was guilty, while, if you watched donut operator, you would likely come away thinking Kyle Rittenhouse was not guilty. This would be an example of basically not doing any actual research or thinking.
Secondary Research (A Priori)
The third scenario, which I'm proposing adds value, involves a bit of both of the above, the former (watching original footage) for the purposes of being able to fact check statements and ideas, and the latter for the purpose of introducing yourself to ideas you wouldn't have, otherwise, come to know (relevant case law, things you may not know about, such as "stand your ground", etc.). Obviously, if you're not very diligent about your understanding of the original footage and/or the analyses that you watch, then, at best, your interpretation is subject to the same shortcomings that you would expect in a "byzantine generals problem" scenario. But if this is what you do, you quote research" by consuming information in thinking critically about the source and the arguments, I think that may well provide just as much, or more, value when compared to only original research.
One might be tempted to leave that a posteriori information (e.g., viewing the original video) is also necessary for this mode of research, but the court system proves that second hand accounts can be just as valuable. Secondarily, once you've established a source that you can trust, or in which you distrust, some trusted information can be gleaned purely from secondhand accounts. For example, if CNN says something is definitively true and seems to be pressing the point and trying to convince the viewer, one can be assured that the inverse of this information is likely true, or at the very least, the information is suspect. Simply using that reasoning, while watching CNN, can, in fact, introduce new, a priori information to your mind.
Interesting, I didn't realize that kind of thing happened over at 4Chan.
BTW, pertaining the quote research", I agree, that is a very strange phenomenon, even most of the popular YouTube personalities, in the prepper and/or conspiracy genre, talk about having done research, and I imagine their version of research is exactly the same.
On the contrary... I do think that "research" can be achieved via a set of reasoning skills, rather than a specific set of activities and/or inputs. For example, a priori research might mean simply taking whatever corroborating information you can glean from various sources (all of whom may be simply regurgitating secondhand a posteriori information from the same source), and coming to novel conclusions based on logic. Because each of the sources will have a different understanding of the source information, developed in the abstractions they've built up over the years, in their reticular activating system (the map is not the territory), your own logic system might be able to the still a more correct truth than what can be gleaned from the original source.
An example of this can be described with regards to the Kyle Rittenhouse self-defense shooting:
Original Research (A Posteriori)
If you had access to every camera angle at the highest resolution available from the original sources, and you were being objective about what you saw, and you had decent spatial reasoning capabilities, you would probably come to the conclusion that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, as commonly defined by courts in the US. This would be an example of actual, original research.
Brainwashing
If, instead, you watched YouTube commentators analyze and comment on the shooting, and you came to your conclusion based on those commentators and the selected clips they played, you would likely determine whether or not Kyle acted in self-defense based on your bias. For example, if you watched The Young Turks, you would likely come away thinking Kyle Rittenhouse was guilty, well if you watched donut operator, you would likely come away thinking Kyle Rittenhouse was not guilty. This would be an example of basically not doing any actual research or thinking.
Secondary Research (A Priori)
The third scenario, which I'm proposing adds value, involves a bit of both of the above, the former (watching original footage) for the purposes of being able to fact check statements and ideas, and the latter for the purpose of proposing ideas and bringing up things you wouldn't have thought of (relevant case law, things you may not know about, such as "stand your ground", etc.). Obviously, if you're not very diligent about your understanding of the original footage and/or the analyses that you watch, then, at best, your interpretation is subject to the same shortcomings that you would expect in a "byzantine generals problem" scenario. But if this is what you do, you quote research" by consuming information in thinking critically about the source and the arguments, I think that may well provide just as much, or more, value when compared to only original research.
One might be tempted to leave that a posteriori information (e.g., viewing the original video) is also necessary for this mode of research, but the court system proves that second hand accounts can be just as valuable. Secondarily, once you've established a source that you can trust, or in which you distrust, some trusted information can be gleaned purely from secondhand accounts. For example, if CNN says something is definitively true and seems to be pressing the point and trying to convince the viewer, one can be assured that the inverse of this information is likely true, or at the very least, the information is suspect. Simply using that reasoning, while watching CNN, can, in fact, introduce new, a priori information to your mind.
Interesting, I didn't realize that kind of thing happened over at 4Chan.
BTW, pertaining the quote research", I agree, that is a very strange phenomenon, even most of the popular YouTube personalities, in the prepper and/or conspiracy genre, talk about having done research, and I imagine their version of research is exactly the same.
On the contrary... I do think that "research" can be achieved via a set of reasoning skills, rather than a specific set of activities and/or inputs. For example, a priori research might mean simply taking whatever corroborating information you can glean from various sources (all of whom may be simply regurgitating secondhand a posteriori information from the same source), and coming to novel conclusions based on logic. Because each of the sources will have a different understanding of the source information, developed in the abstractions they've built up over the years, in their reticular activating system (the map is not the territory), your own logic system might be able to the still a more correct truth than what can be gleaned from the original source.
An example of this can be described with regards to the Kyle Rittenhouse self-defense shooting:
Original Research (A Posteriori)
If you had access to every camera angle at the highest resolution available from the original sources, and you were being objective about what you saw, and you had decent spatial reasoning capabilities, you would probably come to the conclusion that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, as commonly defined by courts in the US. This would be an example of actual, original research.
Brainwashing
If, instead, you watched YouTube commentators analyze and comment on the shooting, and you came to your conclusion based on those commentators and the selected clips they played, you would likely determine whether or not Kyle acted in self-defense based on your bias. For example, if you watched The Young Turks, you would likely come away thinking Kyle Rittenhouse was guilty, well if you watched donut operator, you would likely come away thinking Kyle Rittenhouse was not guilty. This would be an example of basically not doing any actual research or thinking.
Secondary Research (A Priori)
The third scenario, which I'm proposing adds value, involves a bit of both of the above, the former (watching original footage) for the purposes of being able to fact check statements and ideas, and the latter for the purpose of proposing ideas and bringing up things you wouldn't have thought of (relevant case law, things you may not know about, such as "stand your ground", etc.). Obviously, if you're not very diligent about your understanding of the original footage and/or the analyses that you watch, then, at best, your interpretation is subject to the same shortcomings that you would expect in a "byzantine generals problem" scenario. But if this is what you do, you quote research" by consuming information in thinking critically about the source and the arguments, I think that may well provide just as much, or more, value when compared to only original research.
When might be tempted to leave that a posteriori information (e.g., viewing the original video) is also necessary for this mode of research, but the court system proves that second hand accounts can be just as valuable. Secondarily, once you've established a source that you can trust, or in which you distrust, some trusted information can be gleaned purely from secondhand accounts. For example, if CNN says something is definitively true and seems to be pressing the point and trying to convince the viewer, one can be assured that the inverse of this information is likely true, or at the very least, the information is suspect. Simply using that reasoning, while watching CNN, can, in fact, introduce new, a priori information to your mind.