Read on Twitter
Figuring out who to listen to and what's right/wrong in the world of social media, podcasters, and experts of everything is difficult.
As a scientist and writer here's1 trick & 6 lessons on figuring out if a writer, podcaster, or expert should be listened to or not.
As a scientist and writer here's1 trick & 6 lessons on figuring out if a writer, podcaster, or expert should be listened to or not.
First, the quick way:
See what an expert says about something in an area you have expertise in.
For example, I search for where they talk about exercise or athletic performance.
If they are wrong but confident in it. It tells you that something is wrong in their thinking
See what an expert says about something in an area you have expertise in.
For example, I search for where they talk about exercise or athletic performance.
If they are wrong but confident in it. It tells you that something is wrong in their thinking
They overindex on superficial understanding and don't do the deep work.
It doesn't mean they'll be wrong on everything, but it should make you question whenever the person ventures away from an area where they've had 'skin in the game' success in.
It doesn't mean they'll be wrong on everything, but it should make you question whenever the person ventures away from an area where they've had 'skin in the game' success in.
How powerful is this heuristic?
It's the only thing that shook loose a Qanon conspiracy theorist.
For example, one guy was an expert in computers. When he read the nonsense & technobabble the Q folks spewed about his field, he questioned everything else https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/comments/l3yhqc/im_an_ex_q_former_conspiracy_theorist_ama/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
It's the only thing that shook loose a Qanon conspiracy theorist.
For example, one guy was an expert in computers. When he read the nonsense & technobabble the Q folks spewed about his field, he questioned everything else https://www.reddit.com/r/QAnonCasualties/comments/l3yhqc/im_an_ex_q_former_conspiracy_theorist_ama/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
That's the "cheat/trick" way to evaluate whether someone's worth listening to.
What are other signs and signals that we should NOT listen to someone and they don't know what they're talking about?
Here are 6 things to watch out for:
What are other signs and signals that we should NOT listen to someone and they don't know what they're talking about?
Here are 6 things to watch out for:
1. Non-stop complexification.
If someone is using broad, complex-sounding, and ambiguous words it's usually a sign that they don't understand the topic.
Complexity is easy to hide one’s lack of knowledge behind while trying to sound smart.
If someone is using broad, complex-sounding, and ambiguous words it's usually a sign that they don't understand the topic.
Complexity is easy to hide one’s lack of knowledge behind while trying to sound smart.
There's science behind this.
When investors have some knowledge in the area, but not expertise, then utilizing jargon in your pitch is helpful in getting them to invest.
When investors have some knowledge in the area, but not expertise, then utilizing jargon in your pitch is helpful in getting them to invest.
When researchers added neuroscience terms to a text, people were more satisfied with the explanation, even when it didn’t make sense. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2778755/
2. The person is selling something or trying to develop a specific brand.
Yes, we all promote, but there’s a big difference between wanting to spread one’s ideas and wanting to build a copyrighted brand based on them to the exclusion of other ideas.
Yes, we all promote, but there’s a big difference between wanting to spread one’s ideas and wanting to build a copyrighted brand based on them to the exclusion of other ideas.
3. They suggest precise and narrow interventions with massive impacts.
Anytime you read about a single intervention with super wide-ranging effects you should be skeptical.
The flu shot works for the flu. It doesn't cure cancer. Watch out for overreaching
Anytime you read about a single intervention with super wide-ranging effects you should be skeptical.
The flu shot works for the flu. It doesn't cure cancer. Watch out for overreaching
4. The story is the main driver.
The story should represent the science, not the other way around.
If the story is carrying the weight, the science is likely thin.
The story should represent the science, not the other way around.
If the story is carrying the weight, the science is likely thin.
5. Attempting to create an artificial “us versus them” mentality.
But if someone is using conflict and tribalism to sell their idea, then the idea probably isn’t strong enough to stand on its own.
But if someone is using conflict and tribalism to sell their idea, then the idea probably isn’t strong enough to stand on its own.
You see this all the time in writing about diets, fitness, and behavioral change. If the method is strong and probably true, the writer shouldn’t need to fabricate battles to sell it.
6. Guru syndrome.
If a person lacks humility, never addresses how they might be wrong, and reaches far beyond their expertise in providing answers for everything, it’s probably best to stop reading their work.
If a person lacks humility, never addresses how they might be wrong, and reaches far beyond their expertise in providing answers for everything, it’s probably best to stop reading their work.
If those are things to watch out for, then how do we actually decide what's worthwhile?
Introducing the 3-legged school. If you have all three, the stool balances well. If only 1 of 3, good luck. The legs:
1. Theory
2. Research/Science
3. Practice/History
Introducing the 3-legged school. If you have all three, the stool balances well. If only 1 of 3, good luck. The legs:
1. Theory
2. Research/Science
3. Practice/History
1. Theory:
Is the idea backed by a strong theory?
Does the theory make sense in simple terms?
2. Research/Science
Is the idea supported by empirical evidence, and not just a few small studies but lots of studies, and ideally large ones?
Is the idea backed by a strong theory?
Does the theory make sense in simple terms?
2. Research/Science
Is the idea supported by empirical evidence, and not just a few small studies but lots of studies, and ideally large ones?
3. Practice/History
Does the idea (or variations of it) appear in different contexts throughout history and in modern practice?
Do performers with skin in the game utilize/have success with it?
Are there solid patterns that emerge?
Does the idea (or variations of it) appear in different contexts throughout history and in modern practice?
Do performers with skin in the game utilize/have success with it?
Are there solid patterns that emerge?
If you enjoyed this thread, consider following.
I post threads on the science of performance 2x per week.
I post threads on the science of performance 2x per week.
