• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which do you spend more time doing?

Reading and/or listening to other people's opinions (editorials)? Reading methodologically rigorous

  • Reading and/or listening to other people's opinions (editorials)

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • Reading methodologically rigorous and sound research findings

    Votes: 4 23.5%

  • I read equal volumes of each of two noted types of content.

    Votes: 8 47.1%
  • Total voters
    17
Xelor

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Which do you spend more time doing:

  • Reading and/or listening to other people's opinions (editorials).
  • Reading methodologically rigorous and sound research findings.
  • I read equal volumes of each.
If you read neither of the two types of content, just don't respond to the poll question. Folks who read neither are of no use re: the poll's raison d'etre.
 
Xelor said:
Which do you spend more time doing:

  • Reading and/or listening to other people's opinions (editorials).
  • Reading methodologically rigorous and sound research findings.
  • I read equal volumes of each.
If you read neither of the two types of content, just don't respond to the poll question. Folks who read neither are of no use re: the poll's raison d'etre.
Click to expand...

Science is corrupt like the rest of the West is corrupt, dont fool yourself.

I spend my time skimming the internet and thinking almost exactly like Trump spends his time watching cable news and thinking. I have been this way for about a decade, there have been times in my life where I have consumed libraries and been a cable news junkie.
 
Xelor said:
Which do you spend more time doing:

  • Reading and/or listening to other people's opinions (editorials).
  • Reading methodologically rigorous and sound research findings.
  • I read equal volumes of each.
If you read neither of the two types of content, just don't respond to the poll question. Folks who read neither are of no use re: the poll's raison d'etre.
Click to expand...

I'm a casual researcher, policy, and political analyst (as a hobby). I follow industry insiders on twitter much to the dismay of my friends and family who don't understand why I would want to listen to "that crap".

I'm incredibly active on reddit my goto source for breaking news, general advice and political analysis. The Washington Post and The Daily Beast have been my favorite sources for news (if not twitter). Once the story breaks I will automatically plug in a couple of keywords on twitter and see the stories other journalists are working on to get a sense of the situation. At last resort I check Drudge and then finally Hannity. As an Example: Lately, there's been a lot in the news and some important Trump stories have been overshadowed by other Trump stories.

There's some things filed away in my head that I'm waiting to pop off, either writing about or thinking about and trying to time when it or if it will ever see the light of day. I've predicted a number of things in the Trump era even before the MSM realized it. (The Jeff Bezos/AMI fight for one) These would have been labeled as conspiracy theories by our MAGA lovers, but I don't just do this for Trump news. I actually have a future historical timeline I have broken down by the decade when I expect certain technological advancements to be made by society in the next 1000 years and I was pretty accurate between 2010-2020.

Some may call me obsessive, but isn't better to be obsessively investigating things you know nothing about instead of choosing to believe everything is A-OK and having to defend that position every time a story that challenges your worldview comes out? I believe the phrase for that is anti-intellectualism.
 
Both.


It starts with the editorial, and if it piques my interest, it's Google time.

Bitter Pill from Time, various 9/11 crap, abortion, economics. I listen to NPR, and I read stuff here. When something interests me, and I consider it impactful enough to change my outlook, I research. However, I am rarely, if ever, unbiased, in my research. That's difficult.
 
KevinKohler said:
Both.


It starts with the editorial, and if it piques my interest, it's Google time.

Bitter Pill from Time, various 9/11 crap, abortion, economics. I listen to NPR, and I read stuff here. When something interests me, and I consider it impactful enough to change my outlook, I research. However, I am rarely, if ever, unbiased, in my research. That's difficult.
Click to expand...

Although I read some editorials -- more as of my joining DP -- and, as a watcher of cable news, I cannot avoid hearing on-air editorials, my approach is the opposite of yours. For disciplines/fields that attract my interest, I first read research content...mainly because I want to understand the subject before I commence consuming other's opinions about it.
  • No single research paper is going to be "perfect." Each of them has "this or that" exogenous methodological or scope shortcoming. That is what it is, but it's easily enough accounted for by reading another paper(s) that specifically addresses the lacunae extant in the first text one reads. After reading three or four texts/papers, one's got an very fine view of and sense of perspective/context with regard to the topic itself. The process of "starting somewhere" and then working one's way through multiple research papers is how one overcomes bias, both one's own and that resulting from the exigencies of a researcher's having to limit the scope of what s/he examined.

    That, of course, doesn't make me/one an expert on the topic, but it does provide a solid enough foundation for quickly identifying the substantive de-/merits of editorial content one subsequently consumes, and, in turn, knowing where and for what to look to confirm the relevance and accuracy of the editorial's de-/merits that one identified.
 
Xelor said:
Which do you spend more time doing:

  • Reading and/or listening to other people's opinions (editorials).
  • Reading methodologically rigorous and sound research findings.
  • I read equal volumes of each.
If you read neither of the two types of content, just don't respond to the poll question. Folks who read neither are of no use re: the poll's raison d'etre.
Click to expand...

So...do I read research that is biased? Do I read biased opinions? Do I read both?

No. I look for facts. I don't need someone else's bias...I have my own.
 
Xelor said:
Which do you spend more time doing:

  • Reading and/or listening to other people's opinions (editorials).
  • Reading methodologically rigorous and sound research findings.
  • I read equal volumes of each.
If you read neither of the two types of content, just don't respond to the poll question. Folks who read neither are of no use re: the poll's raison d'etre.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I wouldn't be able to decipher raw data on my lonesome, and nor would I find much use in research findings that I don't understand. I'm wholly dependent on journalism in order to have any sort of understanding on anything that's going on, and I really only read news articles as they're spoon-fed to me through conveinant hubs of opposing perspectives, such as this one.

I'm several years removed from any sort of consistent exposure to cable news, and when I did watch cable regularly, it would often be FOX, because that is what my great-grandmother watched, I try to keep my ear to the ground and at least remain aware of other perspectives, which is really the whole point in posting here in the first place, I think, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't spend an egregious amount of time listening to progressive YouTube 'talking heads'.
 
Xelor said:
Which do you spend more time doing:

  • Reading and/or listening to other people's opinions (editorials).
  • Reading methodologically rigorous and sound research findings.
  • I read equal volumes of each.
If you read neither of the two types of content, just don't respond to the poll question. Folks who read neither are of no use re: the poll's raison d'etre.
Click to expand...

I actually find it funny that people want to listen to the opinions of others to form their own opinion. That's why our country is in so much gridlock. Half of mindless Americans listen to the fake news and the other half of mindless Americans listen to the other side's "news". Very few look beyond.
 
I'm a scientist by training so I'm always reading research, either for work or out of personal interest.

Opinion pieces are interesting as a way of connecting with other people and seeing what human society is up to.

We need both, ideally, and I read a lot of both. However, I place more stock into methodologically sound research because I have a factual side to me that is satisfied by it.

I know you didn't include this option, but I also spend a great deal of time on philosophical/spiritual readings, discussions and debates.
 
Most of what I listen to is other people's opinions. Most of what I read is based on sound research or rigorous studies. I spend more time listening to media than reading it, but it is more passive with the listening. It is usually just playing in the background while I drive or work. When I read, however, I am focusing on what I read.
 
Moderate Right said:
I actually find it funny that people want to listen to the opinions of others to form their own opinion. That's why our country is in so much gridlock. Half of mindless Americans listen to the fake news and the other half of mindless Americans listen to the other side's "news". Very few look beyond.
Click to expand...

So what's your answer to the poll question?
 
Northern Light said:
I'm a scientist by training so I'm always reading research, either for work or out of personal interest.

Opinion pieces are interesting as a way of connecting with other people and seeing what human society is up to.

We need both, ideally, and I read a lot of both. However, I place more stock into methodologically sound research because I have a factual side to me that is satisfied by it.

I know you didn't include this option, but I also spend a great deal of time on philosophical/spiritual readings, discussions and debates.
Click to expand...

Red:
The share of such prose that asserts something that cannot be soundly or cogently shown to be true or false falls into the editorial classification. For instance, I periodically read law review essays, judicial decisions, and humanities essays. Such content is technically editorial; however, unlike the editorial content that appears on television and in mainstream publications, authors of such editorial content actually present a fully explicated and exposed case for their POV. Accordingly, while one may or may not concur, at least one has no basis for misconstruing the full body of fact and context that supports the author's conclusion, and the expositive quality of those essays allows one to readily discern whether an author has taken "something" out of context, materially or otherwise, in making his/her case.
As you can see from the above writings, rigorous though they are, they are yet editorial. If the content to which you in "red" refer is of a similar nature, it too counts as editorial.

With the foregoing in mind, what is your answer to the poll question?
 
Xelor said:
Which do you spend more time doing:

  • Reading and/or listening to other people's opinions (editorials).
  • Reading methodologically rigorous and sound research findings.
  • I read equal volumes of each.
If you read neither of the two types of content, just don't respond to the poll question. Folks who read neither are of no use re: the poll's raison d'etre.
Click to expand...

Both, when it comes to reading.
 
I read both. I have no problem reading opinion pieces if they are well written, but I always go after I read them and back them up with verifiable facts.
 
Superfly said:
I read both. I have no problem reading opinion pieces if they are well written, but I always go after I read them and back them up with verifiable facts.
Click to expand...

Red:
I don't much do that. I see little point in my bothering to bolster someone else's argument, regardless of how poorly or well they've delivered it.

Pick a person and an argument they've made; they're going to have to defend it on their own. I'm not going to do that for them, regardless of my stance re: their conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom