[FRIAM] hyperbole (was Re: How democracies die)

[glen]

I think most academics do speak freely. They don't engage in hyperbole because ... it's hyperbole. Most academics are simply doing their job. The same is true of most other normal job-doers. Sure, during a pint at the pub, the construction worker might say something hyperbolic or downright ridiculous. But at work, they tend to be pretty practical and non-hyperbolic.

The complaint against Sabine and many in the wacko pipeline is that their wacko content gets more views. And more views means more money. Her boring videos don't get as much traffic as her wacko videos. So she's incentivized toward the wacko. She's not defying any rules. She's caught up in the forcing structure, obeying the rule even if she doesn't want to. And that means she *is* doing her job, profiting off clickbait and misinformation. It's just not the job of an academic.

On 11/9/24 14:52, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Ah, she’s a scholar but not an academic.    I think that would make DeepMind researchers not academics either, or researchers that work for organizations like Petrobras (even though they publish).  That just says to me that academics aren’t hyperbolic in informal communication not because they fear for their credibility, but because they are afraid to antagonize the kind of social network that funds them.  Graeme Smith comes to mind as someone that makes hyperbolic statements on social media relevant to his field but is an academic in the sense you mean.
> 
> Another reason I could see academics don’t speak freely is because they risk their rewarding gigs as advisors in the judicial or executive activities of government.  Everyone has politics to navigate, but I appreciate it when people like Sabine defy the rules.
> 
> *From: *Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of glen <gepropella at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, November 9, 2024 at 2:27 PM
> *To: *friam at redfish.com <friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject: *[FRIAM] hyperbole (was Re: How democracies die)
> 
> Maybe my use of the word is too constrained. I tend to use it as I think Sabine (and Eric Weinstein and maybe Stephan Wolfram) use it. I.e. they claim they're not part of it. So why shouldn't I believe them? As in the people within the academy, *some* type of institution that combines teaching with research. That would include pretty much anything with the *.edu on the end. SFI is on the outer edge. Heterodox Academy is even closer to the edge ... or perhaps just barely outside of it. Something like Prager University is definitely outside of it. The *primary* aspect of my conception is grantsmanship, which is a hallmark of non-profit activities. If it's a for profit enterprise, it's difficult for me to consider it "the academy".
> 
> But I suppose I could loosen my definition and consider relatively independent science communicators like Sabine or Neil deGrasse Tyson as peri-academics (or maybe even para-academics). Then it would be a short hop to, say, fossil fuel lobbyists. There's some kind of slippery slope, here. And that's why I like to stick to grantsmanship for academicy stuff. (It also applies to other non-profits ... or the hunt for a sugar momma, even ... patronage. But academics, because they're also scholars, have a more sedate and systematic matrix to navigate.)
> 
> The other element that separates people like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Professor Dave or Angela Collier from people like Sabine is that they engage in less hyperbole. My experience with serious academics is they don't run around yelling things like "Science is Dying". Academics tend to be more measured, restrained, particular, and a bit boring. Of course, as they age out, they go a bit batsh¡t. It seems to me emeriti engage in more hyperbole than working academics.
> 
> So long story short: Sabine's not an academic because she doesn't spend her time writing grants. And she's not an academic because too much of her work product is hyperbolic.
> 
> On 11/8/24 22:33, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> I'm still confused why you say Hossenfelder isn't an academic.  Scholar.google.com doesn't see it that way:  Cited by 5,426.   She has recent publications.
> 


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ