Re: [RC] The Value of Research

[David R. Block]

Title: ORourke1 Signature

I would probably be good at it if I ever started. Hell of a place for mean one-liners. David "Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine."--P. J. O’Rourke On 11/17/2011 2:22 PM, bil...@aol.com wrote: Twitter only gives you 140 characters, not words ? What in heck can you say in 140 characters ?     Bike riding is more fun when you are not in  any  hurry.   Yesterday it rained a lot. A cold front is on the way.   Saw Tora, Tora, Tora on TV again. Great flick.   The mayor of Eugene is a total idiot.   Did you get your flu shot yet ?       Who uses Twitter anyway ? Why is this "progress" ?   Billy   -----------------------------------------------------------       11/17/2011 11:43:25 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, c...@2chahn.com writes: I am with you Billy.  How can thinking at a meaningful level be communicated in 140 characters?  That seems to me to be the definition of shallow thought.  I have not bothered to sign up for Twitter.  I really don’t care to get interrupted when some celebrity walks across an airport terminal and boards a plane.   Despite my mystification, this type of connectedness is all the rage and a real factor in our e-society.  The implications for our communities has to be significant, but I don’t know how it will turn out.   Chris           From: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com [mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of bil...@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 12:34 PM To: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com Cc: bil...@aol.com Subject: Re: [RC] The Value of Research   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, c...@2chahn.com 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: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com [mailto:radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of bil...@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 3:35 AM To: radicalcentrism@googlegroups.com Cc: bil...@aol.com 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 <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org