NationStates

Hello, General, this is by far my most often trod forum on NS. I don't roleplay, and I leave off-political discussions to other dedicated boards. I'll dip into Forum 7 every once in a while, but I consider this board my home on NS. I love debate. I love politics. I love interacting with people who would probably strangle me, and I them if we ever met in the real world.

One part, however, has always bothered me and that's been the lack of some sort of differential when it comes to topical knowledge. Me myself? I know just about zero when it comes to something like the politics of the Ukraine or the appropriate tax percentage for the uber-wealthy, or the proper pronunciation of Kirby Delauter. I do, however, have a strong grasp on Japanese/Chinese politics, Naval politics, and psychology. And I'm sure that a lot of us have our own niche categories of professional or personally high interest knowlege.

Now I'm not saying that NS needs to add some new widget or button with every category or interest known to man, but I think that a lot of times people would benefit in a debate by putting more emphasis or attention towards people who could be considered topical experts, rather than trying to sort through the people speaking indirectly from their posteriors.

Perhaps if there was something we could agree to preface our first posts in a topic with if we are subject matter experts? Yes, this does of course open the door for abuse of this 'honor system', but I think it could help people form more informed opinions if they could be shaped and influenced by people whose experiences were actually relevant to the situation.

Or am I off my medication again?

Cue loads of people who think they're experts but aren't crowding out the actual experts.

As an esteemed Doctor of Psychology from Harvard and the Most Interesting Man in the World, I see a great potential for this to be abused through telling untruths about your skills or knowledge. Also, you should drink Dos Equis.

The problem for me is how you define what an 'expert' is, and how you necessarily prove you are one.

You can't infringe on the right to ignorance.

Skappola wrote:As an esteemed Doctor of Psychology from Harvard and the Most Interesting Man in the World, I see a great potential for this to be abused through telling untruths about your skills or knowledge. Also, you should drink Dos Equis.

You don't always debate, but when you do it's on a subject no one has any expertise in but everyone assumes they do.

The problem with someone prefacing a post with their 'credentials' (so to speak) is the age old appeal to authority. Just because someone is educated in a field does not mean their opinion is infallible, and sometimes they might knowingly use their background as an excuse to make fallacious arguments.

There is nothing wrong with laymen having and expressing opinions, so long as their opinions are thought out and they are open to changing their minds.

Are there any genuine experts on NSG?

Also being an expert doesn't mean your always right; think about how many conflicting experts there across just about every academic field. If anything the need to clarify your an expert makes debate worse because its normally bought out in a "trust me I'm right I know loads about this" context.

Having credentials doesn't make one right. You may be more knowledgable about a topic with "credentials", but you could be entirely wrong. I know history professors who believe that we didn't land on the moon, I know science teachers who are fine with creationism, and political geeks who are chill with Marine LePen.

Do they have credentials? Sure. Are they right? Hell fucking no.

isn't this a way to preload an "appeal to authority" fallacy?

Ashmoria wrote:isn't this a way to preload an "appeal to authority" fallacy?

Sounds like it. Remember when Bluth, I think it was Bluth, started a thread by posting his definitions of "country," "state," "nation," and then declared that those were the only definitions that could be used in whatever it was he wanted to talk about? This would lead to "I'm a Subject-Matter Expert on Analytic and Algebraic Topology of Locally Euclidean Metrization of Infinitely Differentiable Riemannian Manifolds, so don't you tell me that 2 + 2 = 4."

I have a feeling the "mature" teen demographic won't like this idea.

Skappola wrote:I have a feeling the "mature" teen demographic won't like this idea.

Either that or they'll be all over it. I know from personal experience that teenagers know everything about everything, it's only that adults are too blind to see. I certainly did when I was a teen. Of course, that was a very, very long time ago and there was much less everything to know everything about, so perhaps it was easier for me.

And thus, being honest about your credentials meant no one listened to you. Take that, parents!

Farnhamia wrote:

Skappola wrote:I have a feeling the "mature" teen demographic won't like this idea.

Either that or they'll be all over it. I know from personal experience that teenagers know everything about everything, it's only that adults are too blind to see. I certainly did when I was a teen. Of course, that was a very, very long time ago and there was much less everything to know everything about, so perhaps it was easier for me.

Farn, you're just too blind to see that all of us are right. You just don't get us kids.

We've all been to the University of Life, ain't we?

Dumb Ideologies wrote:We've all been to the University of Life, ain't we?

Indeed. I've earned my PHD in bullshitting and cringe-worthy sarcasm.

So instead of arguing about actual topics, we could argue about each others' authority to speak on those topics? Sounds like NSG.

Given the demographics, I don't think NSG is well-suited for this sort of thing.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:We've all been to the University of Life, ain't we?

The University of Life where Freshers Week is called being unemployed and its nowhere near as fun.

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:Given the demographics, I don't think NSG is well-suited for this sort of thing.

Malarkey. Plenty of NSG'ers browse through wikipedia articles to pick and choose their favorite ideologies. Do they not have credentials? They went thorough a grueling ten minutes of research, after all.

Zakuvia wrote:Hello, General, this is by far my most often trod forum on NS. I don't roleplay, and I leave off-political discussions to other dedicated boards. I'll dip into Forum 7 every once in a while, but I consider this board my home on NS. I love debate. I love politics. I love interacting with people who would probably strangle me, and I them if we ever met in the real world.

One part, however, has always bothered me and that's been the lack of some sort of differential when it comes to topical knowledge. Me myself? I know just about zero when it comes to something like the politics of the Ukraine or the appropriate tax percentage for the uber-wealthy, or the proper pronunciation of Kirby Delauter. I do, however, have a strong grasp on Japanese/Chinese politics, Naval politics, and psychology. And I'm sure that a lot of us have our own niche categories of professional or personally high interest knowlege.

Now I'm not saying that NS needs to add some new widget or button with every category or interest known to man, but I think that a lot of times people would benefit in a debate by putting more emphasis or attention towards people who could be considered topical experts, rather than trying to sort through the people speaking indirectly from their posteriors.

Perhaps if there was something we could agree to preface our first posts in a topic with if we are subject matter experts? Yes, this does of course open the door for abuse of this 'honor system', but I think it could help people form more informed opinions if they could be shaped and influenced by people whose experiences were actually relevant to the situation.

Or am I off my medication again?

Thank you, I forgot to take my meds today
I gottta agree with you, although I think it is an impossible idea. Everybody thinks he is a topical expert.

Farnhamia wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:isn't this a way to preload an "appeal to authority" fallacy?

Sounds like it. Remember when Bluth, I think it was Bluth, started a thread by posting his definitions of "country," "state," "nation," and then declared that those were the only definitions that could be used in whatever it was he wanted to talk about? This would lead to "I'm a Subject-Matter Expert on Analytic and Algebraic Topology of Locally Euclidean Metrization of Infinitely Differentiable Riemannian Manifolds, so don't you tell me that 2 + 2 = 4."

Whatever happened to Bluth? He used to be so active spreading his... interesting ideas. Did he get banned?

Farnhamia wrote:

Skappola wrote:I have a feeling the "mature" teen demographic won't like this idea.

Either that or they'll be all over it. I know from personal experience that teenagers know everything about everything, it's only that adults are too blind to see. I certainly did when I was a teen. Of course, that was a very, very long time ago and there was much less everything to know everything about, so perhaps it was easier for me.

Well, duh. You just can't see our genius, DAD.

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:Given the demographics, I don't think NSG is well-suited for this sort of thing.

good point.

but it would be helpful if posters would admit they are wrong or that their opponent has proven his point and stop using arguments that have been shown to be faulty many many times TO THEM already.

South New Caledonia wrote:

Zakuvia wrote:Hello, General, this is by far my most often trod forum on NS. I don't roleplay, and I leave off-political discussions to other dedicated boards. I'll dip into Forum 7 every once in a while, but I consider this board my home on NS. I love debate. I love politics. I love interacting with people who would probably strangle me, and I them if we ever met in the real world.

One part, however, has always bothered me and that's been the lack of some sort of differential when it comes to topical knowledge. Me myself? I know just about zero when it comes to something like the politics of the Ukraine or the appropriate tax percentage for the uber-wealthy, or the proper pronunciation of Kirby Delauter. I do, however, have a strong grasp on Japanese/Chinese politics, Naval politics, and psychology. And I'm sure that a lot of us have our own niche categories of professional or personally high interest knowlege.

Now I'm not saying that NS needs to add some new widget or button with every category or interest known to man, but I think that a lot of times people would benefit in a debate by putting more emphasis or attention towards people who could be considered topical experts, rather than trying to sort through the people speaking indirectly from their posteriors.

Perhaps if there was something we could agree to preface our first posts in a topic with if we are subject matter experts? Yes, this does of course open the door for abuse of this 'honor system', but I think it could help people form more informed opinions if they could be shaped and influenced by people whose experiences were actually relevant to the situation.

Or am I off my medication again?

Thank you, I forgot to take my meds today
I gottta agree with you, although I think it is an impossible idea. Everybody thinks he is a topical expert.

It's true. If you ask 100 random people how they rate their driving (assuming they do), more than half of them will say they're an above average driver.