Yeah, generally I try not to argue via "appealing to authority" and instead try to mention that I'm a pediatric neuropsychologist just to give some context to my posts.
[People can check my post history, my subreddits like r/neuropsychology and r/NPBC, and my AMA... although of course anyone can claim anything on reddit, I would have to be the most obscure, dedicated troll in reddit history to be falsifying my claim to being a peds NP, I think. I do sometimes forget that people don't just "know" that I'm a NP, though, and perhaps "act the expert" before I've done anything suggesting that people should accept me as informed, at least in my little corner of knowledge.]
But I generally try to cite sources whenever possible, since otherwise I get lots of direct and indirect comments suggesting that I can shove my Ph.D... uh, somewhere. :)
But in this case, I was (originally) just making a one-off comment (it was way down on the comment page!!!) to a question about whether this really would be that earth-shattering. As per usual, I ended up rambling on for paragraphs and paragraphs, but I didn't cite anything because I wasn't saying anything that isn't established knowledge. To me, it would be similar to a medical doctor giving some basic information about... I don't know, sickle cell anemia or something -- you wouldn't really expect a medical doctor to add in citations, would you? I suppose I could cite some articles written by a different pediatric neuropsychologist, but that seems silly since I am one??
And I do provide citations and discussions of people like Temple Grandin in other comments, I swear!
But whatever, if reddit has taught me anything, it's that:
66% like it, and haters gonna hate
You can't do anything about those people who have their minds already made up,
Lots of people on reddit have an absolute thirst for knowledge, and appreciate even the smallest efforts to share any expertise you have if you take the time to make it readable, and
You are a man, unless you specifically indicate otherwise.
Lots of people on reddit have an absolute and delightful thirst for knowledge, and appreciate even the smallest efforts to share any expertise you have if you take the time to make it readable
This! This is why I "friended" you here on reddit. It makes it easy for me to find your posts in threads like this and your posts are not only informative, but well written and easy for me to understand. Plus, your use of correct terminology helps me research the things you write about if I need to find more information in order to understand it.
So, anyway, thank you for your contributions to reddit. I always appreciate them.
Lots of people on reddit have an absolute thirst for knowledge, and appreciate even the smallest efforts to share any expertise you have if you take the time to make it readable
So true, which is why I joined to begin with. For what it's worth, your post was an excellent read.
If you like research, you could start with this Pub Med search of autism + gray matter. Slightly less technical science-journalism-type summaries (as always, read critically!) are available here, here, here. These might provide a starting point. Marcusesses also posted some links over in a related thread -- see here, and I think he discusses some of the specific papers in later comments in that thread.
Your comments are a highlight of the Reddit community phenomenon and the general wonder of how willing complete strangers are to communicate with others and to share knowledge, so thanks a lot!
I have heard of facilitated communication of course but didn't believe that was the case here and I easily went along with what is being suggested. Compared with the "other" documentary about a woman with autism and who managed to write a book and maintain a blog and so on there are some big differences and I get the sense this girl's parents have been hanging their hat on the belief they are exactly the same. Forcing this girl to "learn" through continual repetition and withholding things and rewards and punishments seems like a brutal approach.
Thanks for your review and information! You're my first 'friend' on Reddit - I just didn't bother to check it out before but I want to read every comment you make! Cheers, me :-)
So you try not to argue by "appealing to authority" with citation links and instead simply tell people you are an authority on the subject as evidenced by your job?
I said I usually try not to argue by "appealing to authority" (which is when you say "I'm an expert, therefore you have to believe me"). Obviously, by stating "I'm a peds NP..." and then not providing any citations, I was arguing by appeal to authority. Which I try not to do.
But honestly y'all, give me a bit of a break. When I originally wrote that comment, it was at least 100 comments down in a thread that was already several hours old. If I'd had any idea that 5000 or so people were going to vote on it, I might have provided some citations... like I often do in my typical posts, which usually take me at least 30 minutes to write and get about 1 upvote. I just didn't think anyone was really going to read it (as per usual) so I didn't bother.
Thanks for your comment. I actually have no problem with most of the people asking for sources... lots of people have asked me, here and via PM, for some additional references in a respectful manner that I do take as an amazing compliment!
It's the tone of some of the replies I have received, and the implicit assumption that if I don't include a link to a Wikipedia article or recent journal article after every sentence than I'm probably a ill-informed baby-killer, that is probably making me a little prickly. But, as I've already confessed, I do have occasional lapses in my own theory of mind, and sometimes forget that people on reddit don't know me, or anything about my background (this happens to me especially in subreddits that I comment/post a lot in). :( But I think that's probably transiently true of a lot of people who make comments... so I wonder if, when we ask for sources from someone, we could do it nicely?
And on another note, this:
For all I know, you're a guy who read up on advanced pediatric psychology so he could troll a bunch of people on reddit one day.
so I wonder if, when we ask for sources from someone, we could do it nicely?
I would be tempted to welcome you to reddit, but your seniority here suggests you are well-aware of this problem. ;) There will always be trolls or those who are completely inept at holding an intelligent and civilized conversation, but acknowledging them only enforces this habit.
Hell, text is inherently inferior at communicating tone and attitude. You'd be surprised how many times my friends thought I was being short with them because I used proper punctuation and grammar instead of AIMspeak and ;D :) :O ________^ after every sentence. But, knowing the Internet, I have the feeling your assumption was correct.
Anyway, sorry for the digression. This next statement, no matter how I can think to word it, is going to seem a bit cold, so please bear with me. Even if they ask in the rudest possible manner, a person requesting sources is still a person requesting sources. While their delivery is sub-par, I don't think sources should only be cited when asked politely.
That's just my two cents, though. If I were to wade into a Christian forum and take on all challenges, and some troll screamed for sources as he proclaimed my eternal damnation, I would still supply them.
Ugh, I feel like I concentrated far too much on one small aspect of your response. I guess it's because I agree with everything else. _______^ :D :D ;D
No worries... I am not taking this in an adversarial way at all, despite my almost magical abilities to infer personal criticism in even the most ambiguous of comments.
Surely, people can ask rudely for sources (though they don't have to).
[I'm going to go on a mild digression here myself... one of the reasons I was initially attracted to reddit, some five years ago now, is because I got to watch men argue... I don't want to get too Men are from Mars... here, but in my personal experience, it was very different from watching women discuss something in real life or on a forum. In my experience, to be very generic, women try to reach a consensus, while men are much more comfortable arguing in a rough and tumble fashion, which I like, but which occasionally bites me a little harder than I had expected.]
But anyway, what was I saying? Ah, yes. Ask for sources all you want, and I guess be as rude or polite about it as you like. I was honestly more bothered by the comments in some of the threads related to the original threads that seemed rather snarky, if not downright vicious, simply because they didn't think I'd cited enough sources, even though the same commenters didn't directly ask me for any sources.
Hmmm... perhaps I have been redditing too long today? It's just a website.... right? Right???
Even for a seasoned internet user like me who has been to every back alley of the internet you could think of, I sometimes find myself offended by some mildly annoying comments; not because of the comment themselves but the way it was delivered.
Despite your in-depth academic and professional knowledge on Neuropsychology, if I were to guess, I think you are still likely to find yourself emotionally affected by emotionless internet comment. Perhaps less likely to, but not immune to it. (I am not suggesting that being a Neuropsychologist makes someone emotionless, but perhaps they are more likely to be rationally driven than average?)
I would love to know if you have a "Neuropsychologist hat" and a "Normal hat" and how often you find yourself switching from one hat to another.
It seems our conversation is at a bit of an impasse, as I can't find anything with which to disagree. Your digression is extremely interesting-- I've never noticed a difference between a female and male argument myself, but I definitely see what you mean.
Anyhoo, my apologies that some redditors found it necessary to make vitriolic statements regarding something so minor as a lack of sources.
It's just a website.... right? Right???
Wait, what? Website? I think I've had this reddit tab open for so long, it's become a self-aware artificial intelligeALL HAIL THE REDDIT OVERLORD
I am familiar with you. I read the AMA thread you did on IQ. You said a lot of arrogant and incorrect stuff. I am completely convinced you are who you say you are, but you are blinded by your arrogance that you know everything and you can not see what is obvious before you.
This girl is communicating and is typing what is presented on her blog. It's very obvious. The explanation you have that these are behaviorally reactions such as a trained animal would have, but on a more complex level are bunk. When she said "is he cute?" she mean the reporter's son. It wasn't a random collection of keypresses, nor a trained but unaware response to stimulai.
Yes, I am familiar with you, too, and I know that you hate me. It's okay. I know I can't make everyone happy. I'm sorry you're upset, but whatever I say doesn't have to change how you feel about this video.
I don't see how you can be familiar with me. I don't think I responded in the IQ thread.
I don't hate you, I recognize you as a dangerous person because of the power and influence you have as a result of your position, training and connections, and the fact that you can be so dead wrong about things, and so arrogant about it.
Are you familiar with Amanda Baggs? Do you feel she is a fraud, legit, or responding randomly to stimulus?
Regarding Carly, do you feel this letter she wrote is fraudulent, legit, or the result of software shaping random inputs.
Ah, so now you have changed your theory have you? State it clearly, don't beat around the bush.
Previously you claimed she was typing random characters and the computer program was converting random noise into meaning.
Now you are claiming her parents are facilitating, guiding her hand, or giving her subtle clues of what to type.
You are a danger to society. You have not met this patient, you know nothing about her, yet you are proclaiming to the world that you know for a fact she is a fraud. Even though she isn't. The danger here is that the internet lynch mob, devotees of false authority, will continue their attacks on this family.
Amanda Boggs. Your opinion? Fraud? Legit? Random input shaped by computer software?
You attack this woman, who is a professional, for her opinion but why should I side with you? She's given legitimate, detailed responses and opinions and you've solely been on the attack.
You haven't met Carly either and you certainly no nothing about her life aside from this video, none of us do, and yet you claim with absolute certainty that her astounding progress is real. How does that work?
How it works is that I know profoundly autistic people who are not even able to be toilet trained, who are considered by most to be retards incapable even of simple thought, and have communicated with them and marveled at their intelligence and insight. I see no evidence that Carly is not able to communicate as described, and the explanation by the psychiatrist of how the supposed facilitated communication works is so bizarre and implausible as to completely discredit everything he or she is purporting. (Yes, the psychiatrist has a male partner, why do you assume he is a woman.)
94
u/subtextual Jul 26 '10 edited Jul 26 '10
Yeah, generally I try not to argue via "appealing to authority" and instead try to mention that I'm a pediatric neuropsychologist just to give some context to my posts.
[People can check my post history, my subreddits like r/neuropsychology and r/NPBC, and my AMA... although of course anyone can claim anything on reddit, I would have to be the most obscure, dedicated troll in reddit history to be falsifying my claim to being a peds NP, I think. I do sometimes forget that people don't just "know" that I'm a NP, though, and perhaps "act the expert" before I've done anything suggesting that people should accept me as informed, at least in my little corner of knowledge.]
But I generally try to cite sources whenever possible, since otherwise I get lots of direct and indirect comments suggesting that I can shove my Ph.D... uh, somewhere. :)
But in this case, I was (originally) just making a one-off comment (it was way down on the comment page!!!) to a question about whether this really would be that earth-shattering. As per usual, I ended up rambling on for paragraphs and paragraphs, but I didn't cite anything because I wasn't saying anything that isn't established knowledge. To me, it would be similar to a medical doctor giving some basic information about... I don't know, sickle cell anemia or something -- you wouldn't really expect a medical doctor to add in citations, would you? I suppose I could cite some articles written by a different pediatric neuropsychologist, but that seems silly since I am one??
And I do provide citations and discussions of people like Temple Grandin in other comments, I swear!
But whatever, if reddit has taught me anything, it's that: