MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2597015980

I'm Right and You're an Idiot: The Toxic State of Public Discourse and How to Clean It Up

2016· article· en· W2597015980 sur OpenAlex
Howard A. Doughty

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œinnovation journal · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLaw, Rights, and Freedoms
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIdiotIgnorancePoliticsHyperboleCivilityRhetoricState (computer science)SociologyLawMedia studiesPolitical scienceLiteraturePhilosophyMetaphor
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

James Hoggan (with Grania Litwin) I'm Right and You're an Idiot: The Toxic State of Public Discourse and How to Clean It Up. Gabriola Island (British Columbia), Canada: New Society Publishers.Reviewed by Howard A. DoughtyOne of the many annoyances of living in the beginning of the twenty-first century is the frequency with which we are exposed to superlatives. Barack Obama is the greatest orator in American history! Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt presidential candidate in American history! Donald Trump is the greatest/worst [fill in the blank] in American history! Nor are Americans the only ones whose profound ignorance of history - American or any other - contributes to the willingness to indulge in sloganeering which turns unpleasant historical events into unprecedented tragedies and modest achievements into world historical triumphs.Our overexposure to hyperbole makes it difficult to distinguish the merely good from the magnificent or the merely bad from the catastrophic. So it is that we are regularly exposed to claims that human relations from global politics to casual social contacts are fraught with ill-will, incivility and intolerance of opinions and interests other than our own.There are a few profoundly evil people in the world, but if you think you're surrounded by them, you probably need to change your own psyche. - Roger ConnerAs though to compensate for our chronic bad manners and, of course, the genuinely loathsome rhetoric that demonizes this or that ethnicity, religion or political belief, we are beginning to see efforts made in our schools, workplaces and, of course, the pervasive and invasive social media to bring us back to attitudes a little closer to reason, reciprocity and mutual respect. It's about time.We seem to have become almost immune to or, worse, excited by demagoguery that justifies everything from tribal-based terrorism to horrifying acts of recrimination and retribution against people who demonstrably intend to do us harm. And that's not even raising the fearmongering, dissembling and attempts at character assassination that have become common in election campaigns in even the most stable Western liberal democracies!Indeed, so distorted are our coffee shop and water cooler conversations (never mind the scripted boorishness of talk radio) by impassioned and polarized opinions that, in response, I expect any day now to learn that some celebrity, civic organization or morality movement has declared a war on hatred. After all, never before in human history have people displayed such venom and vitriol toward others ... at least, not since the last time.IMeanwhile, cooler heads, kinder hearts and soft-spoken advocates for constructive conversations are offering much needed advice. Prominent among them are academics and intellectuals including (mostly American) pragmatists and somewhat more esoteric European critical theorists-some of whom have touched up against both Marx Immanuel Kant and, not surprisingly, emerged the better for it. The lead hand in that particular idea factory is, of course, J?rgen Habermas (1971/2001; 1979; 2000).Habermas' analysis of how to have discussions that actually lead somewhere other than entrenching the prejudices of the participants has, alas, one fundamental flaw: it relies on people who are willing to engage in good faith dialogues/negotiations aimed at resolving disputes rationally, equitably, without coercion and in the common interest. Finding parties to such an ideal process seems unlikely in today?s political climate whether we are dealing with a subway extension in Toronto, a deployment of NATO forces to Latvia or, in extremis, a two-state solution to the Palestinian question.Setting our sights somewhat lower, then, we come upon a new set of suggestions by James Hoggan that purports to suggest how we might get to the point where good will might be encouraged and genuine progress, especially toward addressing the overarching problem of environmental devastation might be made. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,725
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,003
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,311
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle