Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers." Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore " Why? Qualifications show that someone has passed certain prerequisites in a certain field. It's not enough to establish truth of claims, but it's a good start. I also didn't say that qualifications is sufficient to give one expertise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is it that causes us to label someone (or ourselves) an expert? And therefore give their comments special weighting? " I really don't like the word "expert" I worked in my field for 40 years and every day I learned something new and would never claim to be an expert in anything. I suppose some would say I was quite knowledgeable about my work (and others may not lol) It can be quite frustrating that people use social media to voice opinions as facts and are unwaivering in them even when they are obviously wrong. Covid discussion seems to have really accentuated this and polarised people unfortunately, I think mostly due to an excess of available information that can be quite difficult for even the most educated people to understand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore " Pray tell me, how does one acquire a track record of accomplishments without having experience in the field? Or do we say that, for example, my track record of accomplishments in software engineering must automatically make me a greater expert in ancient greek history than someone that actually holds qualifications and has experience in that field? Or possibly you are failing to understand that the combination of experience and qualifications within a specific field is in fact an excellent measure of an individual's accomplishments within that field? And that when one requires heart surgery, there is a far better chance of survival if one seeks help from an individual holding medical qualifications and relevant heart surgery experience, than requesting aid from even the most supremely accomplished rap singer? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Pray tell me, how does one acquire a track record of accomplishments without having experience in the field? Or do we say that, for example, my track record of accomplishments in software engineering must automatically make me a greater expert in ancient greek history than someone that actually holds qualifications and has experience in that field? Or possibly you are failing to understand that the combination of experience and qualifications within a specific field is in fact an excellent measure of an individual's accomplishments within that field? And that when one requires heart surgery, there is a far better chance of survival if one seeks help from an individual holding medical qualifications and relevant heart surgery experience, than requesting aid from even the most supremely accomplished rap singer?" Think you've got an idea for a new TV show. Something like.... Who's Best. Welcome ladies and gentlemen to Who's Best. Tonight an eminent cardiac surgeon, a rapper and a regular poster on a sex site will all complete quadruple by pass surgery on 3 different over 60's. Let's see if being a so called experienced expert in their field counts for anything. But first let's meet tonight's contestants.... Music plays, crowds cheer and out on the stage they burst. Meanwhile... 3 poor fuckers are shown lying in theatre awaiting their fate but one will win the top prize of a weekend break in Pontins.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Pray tell me, how does one acquire a track record of accomplishments without having experience in the field? Or do we say that, for example, my track record of accomplishments in software engineering must automatically make me a greater expert in ancient greek history than someone that actually holds qualifications and has experience in that field? Or possibly you are failing to understand that the combination of experience and qualifications within a specific field is in fact an excellent measure of an individual's accomplishments within that field? And that when one requires heart surgery, there is a far better chance of survival if one seeks help from an individual holding medical qualifications and relevant heart surgery experience, than requesting aid from even the most supremely accomplished rap singer? Think you've got an idea for a new TV show. Something like.... Who's Best. Welcome ladies and gentlemen to Who's Best. Tonight an eminent cardiac surgeon, a rapper and a regular poster on a sex site will all complete quadruple by pass surgery on 3 different over 60's. Let's see if being a so called experienced expert in their field counts for anything. But first let's meet tonight's contestants.... Music plays, crowds cheer and out on the stage they burst. Meanwhile... 3 poor fuckers are shown lying in theatre awaiting their fate but one will win the top prize of a weekend break in Pontins. "Maybe it'll cut down NHS waiting times | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Why? Qualifications show that someone has passed certain prerequisites in a certain field. It's not enough to establish truth of claims, but it's a good start. I also didn't say that qualifications is sufficient to give one expertise." The most common degree Bank managers shared was History ..Nothing to do with their chosen career.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore " this feels like you are saying the same thing, but one is in an academia context, the other business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Why? Qualifications show that someone has passed certain prerequisites in a certain field. It's not enough to establish truth of claims, but it's a good start. I also didn't say that qualifications is sufficient to give one expertise. The most common degree Bank managers shared was History ..Nothing to do with their chosen career.." So what? The idea that someone with a qualification should be ignored is silly. Do I trust someone with a BA in history as an expert in history? Not necessarily. Do they know more about history than someone with a BA in underwater basket weaving? Probably. Someone with a BA in history who goes into banking may know more about banking than history. Sure. But someone with a BA in history who goes on to teach history, or to get a PhD in history - probably knows a thing or two about history, and is probably worth listening to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Pray tell me, how does one acquire a track record of accomplishments without having experience in the field? Or do we say that, for example, my track record of accomplishments in software engineering must automatically make me a greater expert in ancient greek history than someone that actually holds qualifications and has experience in that field? Or possibly you are failing to understand that the combination of experience and qualifications within a specific field is in fact an excellent measure of an individual's accomplishments within that field? And that when one requires heart surgery, there is a far better chance of survival if one seeks help from an individual holding medical qualifications and relevant heart surgery experience, than requesting aid from even the most supremely accomplished rap singer?" Yes you need experience for a track record, but the opposite isn’t true, Not all experience is good. People hang around in academia , public sector and even business for decades being useless, even going backwards is usefulness. I have learned that people lie on CV & linked in about what they did and when I interview I look at what they did exactly not how long here etc Experience is often only useful in doing the sane things. Potential is much more important Many academic qualifications just show the holder is priveaged and parents pushed them through tbh. They may be good , they may be rubbish. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Pray tell me, how does one acquire a track record of accomplishments without having experience in the field? Or do we say that, for example, my track record of accomplishments in software engineering must automatically make me a greater expert in ancient greek history than someone that actually holds qualifications and has experience in that field? Or possibly you are failing to understand that the combination of experience and qualifications within a specific field is in fact an excellent measure of an individual's accomplishments within that field? And that when one requires heart surgery, there is a far better chance of survival if one seeks help from an individual holding medical qualifications and relevant heart surgery experience, than requesting aid from even the most supremely accomplished rap singer? Yes you need experience for a track record, but the opposite isn’t true, Not all experience is good. People hang around in academia , public sector and even business for decades being useless, even going backwards is usefulness. I have learned that people lie on CV & linked in about what they did and when I interview I look at what they did exactly not how long here etc Experience is often only useful in doing the sane things. Potential is much more important Many academic qualifications just show the holder is priveaged and parents pushed them through tbh. They may be good , they may be rubbish." In fields where academia is the only pure expression of the field (history, basic science, etc), would you also say that qualifications are worthless? How would you determine whether someone is a good source when professional or corporate experience/ accomplishments are simply not a thing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Why? Qualifications show that someone has passed certain prerequisites in a certain field. It's not enough to establish truth of claims, but it's a good start. I also didn't say that qualifications is sufficient to give one expertise. The most common degree Bank managers shared was History ..Nothing to do with their chosen career.. So what? The idea that someone with a qualification should be ignored is silly. Do I trust someone with a BA in history as an expert in history? Not necessarily. Do they know more about history than someone with a BA in underwater basket weaving? Probably. Someone with a BA in history who goes into banking may know more about banking than history. Sure. But someone with a BA in history who goes on to teach history, or to get a PhD in history - probably knows a thing or two about history, and is probably worth listening to." A BA means you can read and repeat it back . A Bsc means you can do a spreadsheet. An MSc means you should be able to do a pretty graph 
A Phd means you’re lazy and couldn’t be arsed to get to work
I’m joking of course | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Pray tell me, how does one acquire a track record of accomplishments without having experience in the field? Or do we say that, for example, my track record of accomplishments in software engineering must automatically make me a greater expert in ancient greek history than someone that actually holds qualifications and has experience in that field? Or possibly you are failing to understand that the combination of experience and qualifications within a specific field is in fact an excellent measure of an individual's accomplishments within that field? And that when one requires heart surgery, there is a far better chance of survival if one seeks help from an individual holding medical qualifications and relevant heart surgery experience, than requesting aid from even the most supremely accomplished rap singer? Yes you need experience for a track record, but the opposite isn’t true, Not all experience is good. People hang around in academia , public sector and even business for decades being useless, even going backwards is usefulness. I have learned that people lie on CV & linked in about what they did and when I interview I look at what they did exactly not how long here etc Experience is often only useful in doing the sane things. Potential is much more important Many academic qualifications just show the holder is priveaged and parents pushed them through tbh. They may be good , they may be rubbish. In fields where academia is the only pure expression of the field (history, basic science, etc), would you also say that qualifications are worthless? How would you determine whether someone is a good source when professional or corporate experience/ accomplishments are simply not a thing?" I would expect them to have track record of speaking, debating and others citing their publications in their own work in International journals, that would be a good start | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore this feels like you are saying the same thing, but one is in an academia context, the other business. " Peterson would be a good example , whenever challenged he always pulls out that’s he’s a clinical phycologist (phd) and his record of lecturing. That’s not enough But what has he achieved scientifically - he’s now a YouTuber , appears on daytime TV and author of pop psychology books, I don't think he made breakthroughs in NLP or similar inn his clinical role that is now used my health authorities or anything like that? . I could be wrong I haven’t studied his work in detail | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Pray tell me, how does one acquire a track record of accomplishments without having experience in the field? Or do we say that, for example, my track record of accomplishments in software engineering must automatically make me a greater expert in ancient greek history than someone that actually holds qualifications and has experience in that field? Or possibly you are failing to understand that the combination of experience and qualifications within a specific field is in fact an excellent measure of an individual's accomplishments within that field? And that when one requires heart surgery, there is a far better chance of survival if one seeks help from an individual holding medical qualifications and relevant heart surgery experience, than requesting aid from even the most supremely accomplished rap singer? Yes you need experience for a track record, but the opposite isn’t true, Not all experience is good. People hang around in academia , public sector and even business for decades being useless, even going backwards is usefulness. I have learned that people lie on CV & linked in about what they did and when I interview I look at what they did exactly not how long here etc Experience is often only useful in doing the sane things. Potential is much more important Many academic qualifications just show the holder is priveaged and parents pushed them through tbh. They may be good , they may be rubbish. In fields where academia is the only pure expression of the field (history, basic science, etc), would you also say that qualifications are worthless? How would you determine whether someone is a good source when professional or corporate experience/ accomplishments are simply not a thing? I would expect them to have track record of speaking, debating and others citing their publications in their own work in International journals, that would be a good start " OK, we're broadly in agreement on that. I view qualifications as usually necessary, but not sufficient. If I want to know about the history of Russian tsars, I'll ask someone with a BA in history over a BSc in physics. And a PhD in a relevant area of history over both of them. An expert on Russian tsars is someone with (almost certainly) a PhD in the subject, and publications which have been positively cited and show evidence of influencing the field. Does that mean that Paper X by said expert is a good paper? Not necessarily. But source analysis is about pros and cons. Someone with that kind of track record (which in academic fields, almost always starts with a relevant or closely adjacent PhD) gets a tick in the pro column for that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Why? Qualifications show that someone has passed certain prerequisites in a certain field. It's not enough to establish truth of claims, but it's a good start. I also didn't say that qualifications is sufficient to give one expertise. The most common degree Bank managers shared was History ..Nothing to do with their chosen career.." Possibly this is why the economy is so fucked up? Maybe if the people running the banking system got some education in mathematics, they might be able to balance the books of the country a little better! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Pray tell me, how does one acquire a track record of accomplishments without having experience in the field? Or do we say that, for example, my track record of accomplishments in software engineering must automatically make me a greater expert in ancient greek history than someone that actually holds qualifications and has experience in that field? Or possibly you are failing to understand that the combination of experience and qualifications within a specific field is in fact an excellent measure of an individual's accomplishments within that field? And that when one requires heart surgery, there is a far better chance of survival if one seeks help from an individual holding medical qualifications and relevant heart surgery experience, than requesting aid from even the most supremely accomplished rap singer? Yes you need experience for a track record, but the opposite isn’t true, Not all experience is good. People hang around in academia , public sector and even business for decades being useless, even going backwards is usefulness. I have learned that people lie on CV & linked in about what they did and when I interview I look at what they did exactly not how long here etc Experience is often only useful in doing the sane things. Potential is much more important Many academic qualifications just show the holder is priveaged and parents pushed them through tbh. They may be good , they may be rubbish. In fields where academia is the only pure expression of the field (history, basic science, etc), would you also say that qualifications are worthless? How would you determine whether someone is a good source when professional or corporate experience/ accomplishments are simply not a thing? I would expect them to have track record of speaking, debating and others citing their publications in their own work in International journals, that would be a good start OK, we're broadly in agreement on that. I view qualifications as usually necessary, but not sufficient. If I want to know about the history of Russian tsars, I'll ask someone with a BA in history over a BSc in physics. And a PhD in a relevant area of history over both of them. An expert on Russian tsars is someone with (almost certainly) a PhD in the subject, and publications which have been positively cited and show evidence of influencing the field. Does that mean that Paper X by said expert is a good paper? Not necessarily. But source analysis is about pros and cons. Someone with that kind of track record (which in academic fields, almost always starts with a relevant or closely adjacent PhD) gets a tick in the pro column for that." I’d ask Melvyn Brag for a contact , he’s bound to know the person on that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore this feels like you are saying the same thing, but one is in an academia context, the other business. Peterson would be a good example , whenever challenged he always pulls out that’s he’s a clinical phycologist (phd) and his record of lecturing. That’s not enough But what has he achieved scientifically - he’s now a YouTuber , appears on daytime TV and author of pop psychology books, I don't think he made breakthroughs in NLP or similar inn his clinical role that is now used my health authorities or anything like that? . I could be wrong I haven’t studied his work in detail " Taking Peterson as an example of expertise and the limits of it. I've skimmed the first two lines of "career" on his wikipedia page. It says at Harvard he studied aggression from substance abuse. Assuming that's his body of academic work (it's probably not, but let's go with the example), I'd put a tick in the "expertise" box (as in, is this a reliable source?) if the subject were something like, psychological and physiological causes of aggression, or the psychological sequelae of substance abuse. Maybe half a point for psychology more generally (and more than one point if it's in an area where he's made a difference to the field). Otherwise he gets the same amount of points as Joe down the pub for potential expertise, which is zero. (And if he tries to play that he's an expert in other stuff because he happens to have a PhD, that's points deducted from intellectual honesty - which applies to anyone with a PhD stepping out of their lane, not because of some personal animus against Peterson) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Why? Qualifications show that someone has passed certain prerequisites in a certain field. It's not enough to establish truth of claims, but it's a good start. I also didn't say that qualifications is sufficient to give one expertise. The most common degree Bank managers shared was History ..Nothing to do with their chosen career.. Possibly this is why the economy is so fucked up? Maybe if the people running the banking system got some education in mathematics, they might be able to balance the books of the country a little better!" bank managers aren't running the banking system. Nor HMG ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Why? Qualifications show that someone has passed certain prerequisites in a certain field. It's not enough to establish truth of claims, but it's a good start. I also didn't say that qualifications is sufficient to give one expertise. The most common degree Bank managers shared was History ..Nothing to do with their chosen career.. Possibly this is why the economy is so fucked up? Maybe if the people running the banking system got some education in mathematics, they might be able to balance the books of the country a little better!bank managers aren't running the banking system. Nor HMG !" And probably only have NVQ's now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore " Sounds very similar to Mr. Goves’ We’re sick of experts ‘speech during the Brexit referendum…….. have’nt heard a pip out of him lately | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Sounds very similar to Mr. Goves’ We’re sick of experts ‘speech during the Brexit referendum…….. have’nt heard a pip out of him lately" I didn’t watch it, but there were no Brexit experts , nothing like it had ever been done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore this feels like you are saying the same thing, but one is in an academia context, the other business. Peterson would be a good example , whenever challenged he always pulls out that’s he’s a clinical phycologist (phd) and his record of lecturing. That’s not enough But what has he achieved scientifically - he’s now a YouTuber , appears on daytime TV and author of pop psychology books, I don't think he made breakthroughs in NLP or similar inn his clinical role that is now used my health authorities or anything like that? . I could be wrong I haven’t studied his work in detail Taking Peterson as an example of expertise and the limits of it. I've skimmed the first two lines of "career" on his wikipedia page. It says at Harvard he studied aggression from substance abuse. Assuming that's his body of academic work (it's probably not, but let's go with the example), I'd put a tick in the "expertise" box (as in, is this a reliable source?) if the subject were something like, psychological and physiological causes of aggression, or the psychological sequelae of substance abuse. Maybe half a point for psychology more generally (and more than one point if it's in an area where he's made a difference to the field). Otherwise he gets the same amount of points as Joe down the pub for potential expertise, which is zero. (And if he tries to play that he's an expert in other stuff because he happens to have a PhD, that's points deducted from intellectual honesty - which applies to anyone with a PhD stepping out of their lane, not because of some personal animus against Peterson)" Exactly. He ‘studied’ some modules at ‘adult school’ in substance abuse so may knnow more than me or you on that because he’s read chapters in text books. But did he then synthesise any new ideas, develop approaches and test treatments, receive any awards in that sector of counselling / psychology ? I doubt it so he may be less of an expert than a social worker or counsellor in a prison holding a Diploma that has ran hundreds of sessions with offenders and worked with all kinds of drug abuse agency’s. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore this feels like you are saying the same thing, but one is in an academia context, the other business. Peterson would be a good example , whenever challenged he always pulls out that’s he’s a clinical phycologist (phd) and his record of lecturing. That’s not enough But what has he achieved scientifically - he’s now a YouTuber , appears on daytime TV and author of pop psychology books, I don't think he made breakthroughs in NLP or similar inn his clinical role that is now used my health authorities or anything like that? . I could be wrong I haven’t studied his work in detail Taking Peterson as an example of expertise and the limits of it. I've skimmed the first two lines of "career" on his wikipedia page. It says at Harvard he studied aggression from substance abuse. Assuming that's his body of academic work (it's probably not, but let's go with the example), I'd put a tick in the "expertise" box (as in, is this a reliable source?) if the subject were something like, psychological and physiological causes of aggression, or the psychological sequelae of substance abuse. Maybe half a point for psychology more generally (and more than one point if it's in an area where he's made a difference to the field). Otherwise he gets the same amount of points as Joe down the pub for potential expertise, which is zero. (And if he tries to play that he's an expert in other stuff because he happens to have a PhD, that's points deducted from intellectual honesty - which applies to anyone with a PhD stepping out of their lane, not because of some personal animus against Peterson) Exactly. He ‘studied’ some modules at ‘adult school’ in substance abuse so may knnow more than me or you on that because he’s read chapters in text books. But did he then synthesise any new ideas, develop approaches and test treatments, receive any awards in that sector of counselling / psychology ? I doubt it so he may be less of an expert than a social worker or counsellor in a prison holding a Diploma that has ran hundreds of sessions with offenders and worked with all kinds of drug abuse agency’s. " I think you fundamentally misunderstand what it takes to gain a PhD, let alone the nature of academic research. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Sounds very similar to Mr. Goves’ We’re sick of experts ‘speech during the Brexit referendum…….. have’nt heard a pip out of him lately I didn’t watch it, but there were no Brexit experts , nothing like it had ever been done. " He was referring to many economists who predicted that leaving the EU particularly the single market would be a disaster….. it open the door for words like remoaner/ remainer and pre 1975 , yes we had done it before we knew how bad it is being outside the EU as a 3rd country. He knew damn well the consequences of Brexit but chose it to further his political career. Gove, Pedersen, BJ, Trump are all cut from the same cloth… conflict entrepreneurs ( financially very lucrative) with narcissistic/ sociopathic tendencies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is it that causes us to label someone (or ourselves) an expert? And therefore give their comments special weighting? " A doctorate in their field, evidence-based research, clinical ability and an aversion to Facebook 'experts' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
But otherwise, what a lot of posters have already said, extensive experience, qualifications, and so forth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Pray tell me, how does one acquire a track record of accomplishments without having experience in the field? Or do we say that, for example, my track record of accomplishments in software engineering must automatically make me a greater expert in ancient greek history than someone that actually holds qualifications and has experience in that field? Or possibly you are failing to understand that the combination of experience and qualifications within a specific field is in fact an excellent measure of an individual's accomplishments within that field? And that when one requires heart surgery, there is a far better chance of survival if one seeks help from an individual holding medical qualifications and relevant heart surgery experience, than requesting aid from even the most supremely accomplished rap singer? Think you've got an idea for a new TV show. Something like.... Who's Best. Welcome ladies and gentlemen to Who's Best. Tonight an eminent cardiac surgeon, a rapper and a regular poster on a sex site will all complete quadruple by pass surgery on 3 different over 60's. Let's see if being a so called experienced expert in their field counts for anything. But first let's meet tonight's contestants.... Music plays, crowds cheer and out on the stage they burst. Meanwhile... 3 poor fuckers are shown lying in theatre awaiting their fate but one will win the top prize of a weekend break in Pontins.
Maybe it'll cut down NHS waiting times"Well it likely only shot I've got of getting my knee surgery anytime soon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Relevant experience in a field, and a proven track record validated by peers. Track record of accomplishments , experience & qualifications is often over rated but used in absence of accomplishments by non experts. It’s a good indicator of who to ignore Sounds very similar to Mr. Goves’ We’re sick of experts ‘speech during the Brexit referendum…….. have’nt heard a pip out of him lately I didn’t watch it, but there were no Brexit experts , nothing like it had ever been done. He was referring to many economists who predicted that leaving the EU particularly the single market would be a disaster….. it open the door for words like remoaner/ remainer and pre 1975 , yes we had done it before we knew how bad it is being outside the EU as a 3rd country. He knew damn well the consequences of Brexit but chose it to further his political career. Gove, Pedersen, BJ, Trump are all cut from the same cloth… conflict entrepreneurs ( financially very lucrative) with narcissistic/ sociopathic tendencies. " Isn't there studies that say most ceo's of companies exhibit those sociopathic traits? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A degree in Art will not make a great artist. a degree in English will not make a great author / writer. In my line of work many have come in with reams of paper qualifications but no practical experience and simply cannot at the time actually do the job." I think since this is a virus forum then I think the author is probably looking at it from a science/ virology point of view rather than other disciplines. Also- degrees are generally obtained in our formative years, yes you come out with a piece of paper but what has already been mentioned on the forum already- you lack experience- that comes with time. I would suggest that not many famous artists or authors were successful in their twenties/ leaving uni. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is it that causes us to label someone (or ourselves) an expert? And therefore give their comments special weighting? " Supposed experts have been wrong. It's your personal choice not others that decide your outcome. Risk has detrimental and positive results. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
