I ask myself what I value in opinions and communication, yet there are so many cases.
- Do I value people with strong opinions? Maybe just well-researched opinions? not always, because there are people who have well-researched opinions that feel intuitively wrong.
- Is it annoying when people equivocate, bring up situational one-off concepts, claim things are multifactorial, and promote the concept of balance with regards to nutrition? yes.
- Do I get annoyed when a journalist regurgitates words, makes a lot of connections, (I doubt that they read everything that they link to), yet makes no suggestion based on what they learned? Yes.
- Do I admit that these word-regurgitators are helpful for finding other primary sources? Yes.
- do I get annoyed by regurgitators linking to something as if it’s a real important concept, and it turns out to be a wikipedia page? yes.
- Do I get annoyed by the word epistemic and still do not know what it means or care about it? Yes. Supposedly it has to do with “knowledge and its validation,” but knowledge should be self-evident in the way you write.
- i don’t value bloated essays or drawing pointless diagrams.
conclusively, I can say that I value strong, well-researched opinions that have historical precedence, research, and wisdom (aka NOT of the modern ‘statistical’ studies and ‘smart’ type, the type that references modern podcasts and books at surface level, or the type that is really into rationality, linking words to wikipedia definitions, and overusing the word epistemic)
another thing is these types of people almost never admit that they’re wrong. they always bring up various cases, shift blame, and keep on existing and trying to evade any sort of punishment.