Chris :
Yes, I am mystified about Twitter. What on earth is it really good for  ?
sort of like Instant Messages on AOL. which I never have used because
it is so pointless. Maybe such "services" are intended mostly for  kids
who simply don't have much more to say about any given topic
than 144 words.
 
"Hi, howya doin' ?  Whattsup ? Gotta go now."
 
This is good for what ? ? ?
 
Even if it was a good to communicate this way, why is a new technology  
necessary ?
Can do that just as well, approximately just as fast, via e-mail.
 
What am I missing ?  I just don't "get it."
 
Billy
 
 
----------------------------------------------
 
 
 
 
 
11/17/2011 8:11:01 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

 
Billy, 
Excellent  thoughts.  Policy not based on sound research is a pathway to 
failure.  We run into trouble when our decision makers rely on biased 
information,  false data, Ouija board consultation, or emotional  fervor, 
An interesting  development in recent years is policy-by-the-polls.  
Legitimate survey  techniques, widely practiced, have given use regular access 
to 
public opinion.  Research-based data from the polls change the action and 
rhetoric of  politicians.  This is a double-edged sword conundrum.  The 
frequent  polls create a more quasi-democratic society.  No longer do we have 
to  
wait for an election to get a quantitative pulse of public opinion.  The  
problem is that day-to-day public opinion is largely based on sound bite news  
and Internet clips that are unbalanced and poorly  researched. 
Because I do  investigative work for a living, I know that an initial 
interview from one  perspective can convincingly tell a story (shiningly 
presented on, say, a TV  screen).  But on further review and after much more 
data 
collection, the  initial presentation turned out to be badly misleading and 
one-sided.   The public is left with the first impression, and that is what 
shows up in the  polls. 
What the country  needs is more thoughtful discourse at a deeper level 
(like on this  list).  Unfortunately, with the Twitterization of our media and 
society,  we seem to be headed the other direction. 
Chris   
 

 
 
From:  [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]]  On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011  3:35 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc:  [email protected]
Subject: [RC] The Value of  Research

 
The  Value of Research
 

 
There is no profession that does  not rely on research to validate what it 
is
 
responsible for doing. None at  all, whether discussing medicine, the 
military
 
( which, since Viet Nam, has  placed high priority on higher education for 
all officers,  
 
hence colonels and generals  with degrees from Princeton or Yale ), business
 
and hence the growing importance  of top business schools, social science 
such
 
as the work done in analyzing  population data by the Census Bureau, and 
 
on and on through a list of  thousands of occupations. This extends to the
 
most common-sense of areas of  expertise, to auto mechanics who need
 
to hit the books and learn how  computer systems in cars function, to
 
farmers who research soils and  hydrology, and to policemen who need
 
to study such subjects as  crowd control, forensics, and ballistics.
 

 
After all, what is the  alternative ?  No research ?  Where is that kind of 
 approach
 
viable anywhere in modern  society ?  Nowhere except when there is a  
question
 
of public opinion, or so it  seems. About politics, while millions do make 
an  effort
 
to become informed ( another  term for research ),  other millions derive 
just  about
 
all of their opinions from other  uninformed people, or based on nothing so 
much
 
as values they learned in  childhood. In what way is this a "good" ?
 

 
Which is why Radical Centrists  generally take the view that uniformed 
opinions
 
have no intrinsic value. After  all, most of us are professionals of one 
kind or
 
another and we all are well  aware that research has great value. Plus, 
some of  
 
us have written books or  professional articles. Any kind of serious 
writing  demands
 
competent research skills, no  matter what else may be involved in writing 
such  as
 
sense of style or skill at  narrative descriptions. Some are involved in  
professional
 
societies, all of which place a  premium on solid research. Otherwise they 
would
 
not be  professional.
 

 
Finally, consider any issue on  which you take a stand. Any issue at all. 
How can
 
anyone know that his or her  opinions are valid without some serious study ?
 
Without it what one has is  guesswork, or the alternative of repeating 
someone
 
else's views and hoping that  those views are true and can stand tests that
 
others may ask for if their  agreement is desired. 
 

 
It would do everyone a lot of  good, of course, to have some "existential  
interests,"
 
to have friends in the real  world, to create adventures for yourself by 
hiking  in
 
the outdoors, to explore the  nearest mountain when there is a chance to do 
so,
 
to seek out the seashore, to  take calculated risks when circumstances 
warrant,
 
for instance, speaking out at a  community meeting. But about these kinds 
of things,  
 
mostly these words consist of  preaching to the choir. 
 

 
That is, we need to be flesh and  blood caring human beings ; all  research
 
and no existentialism, so to  speak, and life is only part of what it can 
be,
 
and personality pays the  price ;  insights may be lost, awareness of  
entire
 
categories of reality can  pass you by,  and perspective  --what is  really
 
important and what is  not--   is compromised. None of which anyone  here
 
wants to see happen. Or so it  seems to me from our many 
 
e-mail conversations over the  years.
 

 
Yet when all is said, research  is essential. It is safe to say that 
everyone also
 
takes pride in the kinds of  research they carry out, whether research 
needed
 
for computer programming, or for  data analysis to use for customer service
 
purposes, or for making  political judgements, and many other things.
 

 
Which is one reason why we  sometimes are highly critical of journalists
 
who don't do the research they  are responsible for but fail to do, and
 
similarly with respect to poorly  informed politicians.
 

 
In all of this there is no  libidinal contest, or competition among egos.
 
We want to do our best, and to  the extent there is competition it almost
 
always is for the purpose of  being smarter and more well-informed than
 
those who's views outside the  group we are challenging. After all, while
 
we all have our  election-to-election preferences, by and large we  take
 
the view that both Democrats and  Republicans, and others, can be
 
and often  are  flat out wrong about any  number of topics and issues.
 
We feel confident in our views  precisely because, as much as it is
 
practical to do so, our opinions  are researched.
 

 

 
Billy  R.
 
November 17,  2011
 

 

 

 

 





-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to