I find this to be a standard trope of trolls. When people start asking for links, etc, esp in a rude and antagonistic way, I want to tell them to do their own research, that's what Google's for. Lazy sods.
I've got to disagree. People who say' do your own research' come across to me as ignorant and lazy.
I generally respond in kind. If a person gives me evidence, I will give him evidence. If he gets all insistent that he is right and beyond being challenged, I call him out for that and tell him, if he won't do his own research, I'm certainly not going to do it for him.
It depends on context. If the only form of dialogue someone knows is some form of "prove it," then what's the point? There's no real interest in the facts. It's just a form of takedown or a disingenuous "gotcha."
Yes, it depends on context. I'll involve myself with someone who knows what they're talking about but has a different point of view than me. Such discussions are how we all expand our comprehension. These are the people I WANT to talk with.
Others just want to argue. I'll do a little of that, but not much.
If I'm writing a term paper or thesis, I'm obliged to cite sources. If I'm commenting on an informal forum, I have no such obligation. If someone doesn't believe what I'm saying, it's their problem and if they want to know more they need to do their own research. Lazy sods.
No, if they don't believe you, it's YOUR problem. If you don't care if anyone believes you, then fine.
But if you are trying to convince anybody of anything, that's a really bad way to go about it. And, if you have a means to support your 'thesis', then why not provide it?
People on forums, and what they think, are not my problem. Do I care if you believe what I say on a forum? Am I trying to convince you? Read what I said again. "Thesis"? You seem to take this stuff too seriously. In an informal conversation, citing sources is not obligatory. If you feel you need to know more about anything I might say, that's on you. You look it up. Don't be lazy. I'm not here to do your research for you. That being said, if you're ever my professor and I turn in a term paper, I promise it will include an appendix citing all sources of information.
Basic—This level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade. Proficient—This level represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed.
So yes, fewer than 70% of school children nationwide have the basic word-sounding-out, grammar-and-punctuation-decoding skills to allow them to independently complete their own classwork and homework correctly, while fewer than 30% have the proficiency to enjoy a novel or read a news story to the end and parse the information. Nationwide, proficiency drops to 15% for black kids. Meanwhile, certain public schools in places like Los Angeles have devolved into full-time ESL labs, while reading proficiency for the general ed population languishes only a few percentage points ahead of proficiency for the special ed population.
There have to be other factors to how obviously illiterate young people have become, because even though the schools love to blame COVID, the national percentages for 2022 are only a couple points behind 2019, and very similar to 1998. There seems to be a lot more sullen, belligerent pride taken in being resentful, entitled, blithering imbeciles that was less frequent and obvious for most people, most of the time, in earlier eras. It used to be fairly common to want to better yourself; now it seems standard to want to devolve and force others down with you, including the educational system.
One of the factors has to be the inmates running the asylum. That 70+% non-proficient population from 1998 is running the schools and local governments in 2024.
Absolutely. Once standards are lowered for one generation, they go on to teach those lower standards to the next generation *because they don't know any better*.
I will often see an adult attempt to use a colloquial phrase and get it wrong. It's immediately obvious that they don't know what they are saying. They never read the phrase, they don't know what it means, and they don't know the words that compose it, so they use words that sound like what they thought they heard. The result is nonsense. And I wonder if I could ever really communicate with this jumbled, alien mind.
And for the love of God would people please stop pronouncing the 't' in the word "often". The 't' is silent, unless you are using the old variation "oft".
And on the flip side are those DYHE types who rely on ‘studies’ that are inaccurate, inadequate, have a very small sample size or contain more noise than signal and meaningless ‘data’. Didn’t James Lindsey, Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose prove this point by submitting their nonsense studies to academic journals? On the medical front, Dr. Vinay Prasad and Dr. Marty Makary effectively debunk junk science and studies. Do any DYHE types refuse to acknowledge ‘lived experience’? Or would that be racist and <insert identity>phobic?
I've encountered DYHE Guy. I remind him that we're just commenting on an informal forum, not writing a term paper. Source-citing is not required, but if he needs more information, he can do his own research.
He gets incensed, calls me some names, and asks how I expect him to accept what I've said if I don't provide a citation. I tell him that I'm just stating what I know to be true, not attempting to make him believe it. I don't care if he believes it or not. He can believe whatever fantasy makes him happy, for all I care.
He calls me more names. You can't reason with such people.
They have their confirmation bias’s so balled up in their rectum,that you could cite any paper or video, or straight from the horse face’s mouth, but it wouldn’t matter. Those types believe what they feel comfortable believing, and are the last people that will ever wake to facts. So fuck em.
It works very well for the people who are "asking for evidence" as a way to disagree by saying / implying that your position is not founded on valid arguments and facts.
This puts the burden on you to find this evidence and then convince the person, rather than on them to disprove or discredit using their own logic or hard 'evidence' (though to be fair sometimes this is not possible it is difficult to prove a negative for example).
If they actually do want evidence, then they can come up with an answer to your questions and you can go from there, staying on topic rather than going down the rabbit hole of evidence questing.
They're particularly fond of asking for peer-reviewed studies from academic journals -- which as everyone knows, are totally politically unbiased and complete infallible.
They also want sTuDiEs for what is really just elementary wisdom about life that should be obvious to everyone over 22. Child, it's not contained in any study.
I subscribe to "Retraction Watch", which follows and documents the numbers, authors and importance, (read quoted) retractions and corrections of published academic papers. The facts are astonishing. I heavily scrutinize the information provided and am sickened by the fraud perpetrated by these so-called "experts". Anyone who calls themselves a critical thinker needs to subscribe to their newsletter. It is quite the eye opener and particularly relevant to this conversation.
I'm reminded of James Lindsay's mantra: the issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.
I think you nailed it regarding DYHEG — he's not interested in looking at or evaluating evidence. He's only interested in creating a ruckus that makes you or me or whoever look bad. That's the only goal.
I find this to be a standard trope of trolls. When people start asking for links, etc, esp in a rude and antagonistic way, I want to tell them to do their own research, that's what Google's for. Lazy sods.
I've got to disagree. People who say' do your own research' come across to me as ignorant and lazy.
I generally respond in kind. If a person gives me evidence, I will give him evidence. If he gets all insistent that he is right and beyond being challenged, I call him out for that and tell him, if he won't do his own research, I'm certainly not going to do it for him.
It depends on context. If the only form of dialogue someone knows is some form of "prove it," then what's the point? There's no real interest in the facts. It's just a form of takedown or a disingenuous "gotcha."
Yes, it depends on context. I'll involve myself with someone who knows what they're talking about but has a different point of view than me. Such discussions are how we all expand our comprehension. These are the people I WANT to talk with.
Others just want to argue. I'll do a little of that, but not much.
If I'm writing a term paper or thesis, I'm obliged to cite sources. If I'm commenting on an informal forum, I have no such obligation. If someone doesn't believe what I'm saying, it's their problem and if they want to know more they need to do their own research. Lazy sods.
No, if they don't believe you, it's YOUR problem. If you don't care if anyone believes you, then fine.
But if you are trying to convince anybody of anything, that's a really bad way to go about it. And, if you have a means to support your 'thesis', then why not provide it?
People on forums, and what they think, are not my problem. Do I care if you believe what I say on a forum? Am I trying to convince you? Read what I said again. "Thesis"? You seem to take this stuff too seriously. In an informal conversation, citing sources is not obligatory. If you feel you need to know more about anything I might say, that's on you. You look it up. Don't be lazy. I'm not here to do your research for you. That being said, if you're ever my professor and I turn in a term paper, I promise it will include an appendix citing all sources of information.
Thank you Josh. This is a helpful reminder.
Especially when those DYHEGs are supposed “friends” calling you out to “help you improve” or whatever other BS they say.
I’ve definitely gotten caught up in it before. Good reminder here!
For the record, though it doesn't help with DYHE trolls, yes, there is often a study. For example:
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023010NP8.pdf
https://heytutor.com/heres-where-every-state-stands-on-math-and-reading-proficiency-amid-20-year-lows/
From the NCES:
Basic—This level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade. Proficient—This level represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed.
So yes, fewer than 70% of school children nationwide have the basic word-sounding-out, grammar-and-punctuation-decoding skills to allow them to independently complete their own classwork and homework correctly, while fewer than 30% have the proficiency to enjoy a novel or read a news story to the end and parse the information. Nationwide, proficiency drops to 15% for black kids. Meanwhile, certain public schools in places like Los Angeles have devolved into full-time ESL labs, while reading proficiency for the general ed population languishes only a few percentage points ahead of proficiency for the special ed population.
There have to be other factors to how obviously illiterate young people have become, because even though the schools love to blame COVID, the national percentages for 2022 are only a couple points behind 2019, and very similar to 1998. There seems to be a lot more sullen, belligerent pride taken in being resentful, entitled, blithering imbeciles that was less frequent and obvious for most people, most of the time, in earlier eras. It used to be fairly common to want to better yourself; now it seems standard to want to devolve and force others down with you, including the educational system.
One of the factors has to be the inmates running the asylum. That 70+% non-proficient population from 1998 is running the schools and local governments in 2024.
Terrifying.
Absolutely. Once standards are lowered for one generation, they go on to teach those lower standards to the next generation *because they don't know any better*.
This is only going to get worse as we import millions of illegal immigrants from the third world.
I will often see an adult attempt to use a colloquial phrase and get it wrong. It's immediately obvious that they don't know what they are saying. They never read the phrase, they don't know what it means, and they don't know the words that compose it, so they use words that sound like what they thought they heard. The result is nonsense. And I wonder if I could ever really communicate with this jumbled, alien mind.
And for the love of God would people please stop pronouncing the 't' in the word "often". The 't' is silent, unless you are using the old variation "oft".
DYHEG is the midwit at the top of the bell curve.
🤣🙌🏻
Bon Qui Qui to the rescue. It never gets old.
Hi, I don't know what "bon, qui, qui" means. I know what these words mean literally in French, but am not familiar with the expression.
"Bon Qui Qui" is the name of a character played by a comic depicted in the last photo in this post.
Here's the skit:
https://youtu.be/aKV3jXOiPOU
Thanks Josh! Boomer education 😊
I love you. You are my favorite.
And on the flip side are those DYHE types who rely on ‘studies’ that are inaccurate, inadequate, have a very small sample size or contain more noise than signal and meaningless ‘data’. Didn’t James Lindsey, Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose prove this point by submitting their nonsense studies to academic journals? On the medical front, Dr. Vinay Prasad and Dr. Marty Makary effectively debunk junk science and studies. Do any DYHE types refuse to acknowledge ‘lived experience’? Or would that be racist and <insert identity>phobic?
I've encountered DYHE Guy. I remind him that we're just commenting on an informal forum, not writing a term paper. Source-citing is not required, but if he needs more information, he can do his own research.
He gets incensed, calls me some names, and asks how I expect him to accept what I've said if I don't provide a citation. I tell him that I'm just stating what I know to be true, not attempting to make him believe it. I don't care if he believes it or not. He can believe whatever fantasy makes him happy, for all I care.
He calls me more names. You can't reason with such people.
They have their confirmation bias’s so balled up in their rectum,that you could cite any paper or video, or straight from the horse face’s mouth, but it wouldn’t matter. Those types believe what they feel comfortable believing, and are the last people that will ever wake to facts. So fuck em.
My sentiments, exactly.
As Thomas Paine said, "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
Good post.
Unfortunately, conversations do go like this when calling 911. It’s awful.😳
It is also weird as this usually comes from the same party that screams "my truth"
“Sorry, DYHEG, I would but I don’t think you’re capable of understanding it.”
You referenced Bon Quai Quai- for the win!!
Excellent piece.
in the times I’ve been dumb enough to respond, I find it is better to say something like:
what would you consider evidence? and if I provided it, how would that affect your argument? would you then change your mind?
they will either refuse to respond or totally show their ass.
but Josh is right, never actually give them “evidence” because they really don’t care…
"Uhhh akhsually I'm the arbiter of all knowledge so I will judge if your source is good once you present it for my dissection."
I think that's a great response.
It works very well for the people who are "asking for evidence" as a way to disagree by saying / implying that your position is not founded on valid arguments and facts.
This puts the burden on you to find this evidence and then convince the person, rather than on them to disprove or discredit using their own logic or hard 'evidence' (though to be fair sometimes this is not possible it is difficult to prove a negative for example).
If they actually do want evidence, then they can come up with an answer to your questions and you can go from there, staying on topic rather than going down the rabbit hole of evidence questing.
To clarify that was a reply to Hollis Brown
exactly! it exposes the bad faith nature of the entire response.
because we all know that they never actually want to consider real evidence in an honest fashion.
They're particularly fond of asking for peer-reviewed studies from academic journals -- which as everyone knows, are totally politically unbiased and complete infallible.
They also want sTuDiEs for what is really just elementary wisdom about life that should be obvious to everyone over 22. Child, it's not contained in any study.
I subscribe to "Retraction Watch", which follows and documents the numbers, authors and importance, (read quoted) retractions and corrections of published academic papers. The facts are astonishing. I heavily scrutinize the information provided and am sickened by the fraud perpetrated by these so-called "experts". Anyone who calls themselves a critical thinker needs to subscribe to their newsletter. It is quite the eye opener and particularly relevant to this conversation.
I'm reminded of James Lindsay's mantra: the issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.
I think you nailed it regarding DYHEG — he's not interested in looking at or evaluating evidence. He's only interested in creating a ruckus that makes you or me or whoever look bad. That's the only goal.