Originally Posted by Tamara
I agree, why bother? Remove all sources to the Internet immediately! Godspeed.
But what the hell, I'll be your huckleberry; that's just my game...
Are you saying that the person who wrote the cover article in the magazine you linked didn't honestly review the gun they had in their hands?
Bolded the most important part there. Like bad cops and corrupt politicians, you usually only hear about/from the loud, narcissistic, windbags. Group think is found in any field and it's certainly found in academia. I am not sure if it is a good amount. Academic environments are, ideally, forums for the free exchange of new and maybe radical ideas. For advanced career academics (grad students and professional scholars) that is usually what academic environments are. Unfortunately, for undergraduates, particularly at large massive state schools, that have replaced free dialog with, barely getting paid, hopefully capable, lecturer - that is not the case. Which is to say it's not group think per se because that would imply actual thinking and parroting. Instead it's lowest common denominator degree milling that has the same, very predictable, results in quality as any other form of mass-market product.
Gotta be honest what you're seeing isn't the byproduct of a nefarious group think plot. Instead its the result of a few things 1) Cultural shift to large-scale higher education as being necessary. 2) Politicians selling the idea that higher ed. isn't anything else besides grades 12-16. 3) The proliferation of the professional university administrator, who isn't an academic, hasn't taught a day in their life, and isn't really a scholar either. All of these combine with self-inflated egos and you get a recipe for what is easily construed as group think. Because in order to get the fifty-eight THOUSAND undergrads at my previous institution through their undergrad careers, at some level we have to stick them in a room and make them parrot stupid shit back to us and the end result is what you call "group think" and we call...well Dirty Deeds on the Down Done Cheap and it's not as though we are proud of it and some of us (most?) are fighting a losing battle to keep it from happening. I've given up on the idea of returning to glory days gone past and I, personally, am focused on working through a career in an attempt to make the academic world a better place when I leave it. We'll know if I am successful in about 40 years.
As an addendum usually what I find about these loud windbags is the louder they are the less prolific and well respected they are as academics. In my experience, which is now essentially the entirety of my adult life, in dealing with academics the good ones are way, way, way, too busy to complain about things like Wikipedia. Most of them (us) are balancing administrative responsibility, professional development/service, course teaching, mentoring and supervising of students at multiple levels (undergrad and grad), doing original research, writing original research, and looking for and applying for grant funding. Personally, I worked 73 hours last week, I don't have a lot of time to complain about Wikipedia.
I was just seeing if you'd post your cover.
But what the hell, I'll be your huckleberry; that's just my game...
Are you saying that the person who wrote the cover article in the magazine you linked didn't honestly review the gun they had in their hands?
This. The key I think consists of three things:
1. we all have some degree of 'confirmation bias'. You to have be mindful of that
2. exercise your critical thinking skills
3. you have to be somewhat adept at data analysis, or to put it finer terms you must develop your "bullshit detector"
ETA: Rob is totally right about Lightfighter xD. Sad really, it wasn't like that back when I joined in like....2001 maybe?
Sturgeon's law is pretty true for most every source of information, internet or otherwise.
One may as well ask if your local newscast was a good source for local news.
Regarding Wikipedia, I was out of school before it hit the scene, so I've never dealt with it from the student perspective. I've heard students comment that some professors frowned on it though. However, I don't think this disapproval should be termed "groupthink." Rob's comments about the free exchange of ideas are accurate but I think he under emphasized the egotism that often accompanies it. For example I was at a conference once when a guy asking questions from the audience and the speaker giving the presentation got into a yelling match. I've also seen faculty members scream at each other in departmental seminars and freely insult each other. Obviously these people were not embracing in a big groupthink hug. Wikipedia is perceived as a threat because it is outside of the historical norm and has no "keeper," so to speak. How do you rebut a lousy Wikipedia entry? It has no peer review, and no one's name is attached to it. It's also much more accessible that the traditional scientific literature. Combine all of these things, and you can see how "the establishment" would perceive Wikipedia as a threat. It is an insult to ego and arrogance rather than an affront to groupthink.
Hand Held Howitzer - http://americanhandgunner.com/the-he...ocket-shotgun/
In written form or on the Internet - take your pick. I was once asked to write an article about negligent discharges but a new editor ditched it because it was too technical - oops, sorry for reading the ergonomics journals.When stoked with some proper defensive ammo I just cannot fathom an attacker continuing his malfeasance after meeting the Pocket Shotgun in an awkward social encounter.
OH - to Pangloss - best thing I saw at an academic conference:
Guy asks presenter a question. Answer - you asked the same thing last year, you were too stupid to understand the answer then. Are you smarter now?
My soul hurts.
Reply With Quote