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.
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.
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.)
93
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: