The science of opinion ...
| Post removed |
It’s OK to have an open mind. Just not so open that your brains fall out. It’s very messy and hard to clean up. Professional studios? As opposed to Amateur studios, one assumes. Hey, did you hear Phil Collins is making a new record? He’s back in the Stu-Stu-Studio! 🤗 I told ma I think my stand up is ready for the clubs. She said but don’t you have to be funny to be a comedian? |
phys.org is a popular science site. It collects and displays articles that are of "interest" to the general population. Little there is esoteric or of a fundamental nature unless it relates to things that are public conscious items. Even mentioning it was nothing but a call to authority (much like your rebuttal), but your attempt at justification of its values to a very specific industry and discipline was interesting. As you talk a lot about science, you must have an AES membership? I don't see you there. Do you subscribe to any of the several acoustics and pyschoacoustics journals? Materials sciences? I never used the word charlatan, but generally that word is assigned to someone who makes extraordinary claims, claims that they are unwilling to or can't back up in something approaching a controlled situation where the claims can be verified or disproved. |
I started to read the article but I only got as far as this. Then I stopped reading. Was that wrong? “At the scale of a group, repeated local influences among group members may give rise to complex patterns of opinion dynamics such as consensus formation, polarization, or fragmentation [8]–[11]. For example, it has been shown that people sharing similar extreme opinions, such as racial prejudices, tend to strengthen their judgment and confidence after interacting with one another [12]. Similar mechanisms of opinion dynamics can take place in a variety of social contexts.” |
