Opinion Authority
The whole idea that the Internet has no hierarchy or authority is very true. Printed materials tend to have fewer flaws than material posted on the Internet, but they can still have minor problems or even be blatantly wrong. It is easier to get away with publishing incorrect material on the Internet than it is to publish incorrect printed material because it costs a significant amount of money to go through the process of turning information into printed material. On the other hand, if I have a small amount of money and know a bit about website coding I can easily post a website full of wrong information. That being said, both mediums can both be full of wrong information from sources that we think are credible. Its strange how credibility works. We tend to trust material that is put out by people who come from big name institutions, but even then the content can be blatantly wrong. A music and art critic for the Chicago Tribune is a perfect example of this. (I won’t give out his name online, but feel free to ask me in person if you really want to know). This critic has no business talking about art and music and often times is BLATENTLY wrong. I worked several times with a “professional” (professional meaning this person supports themselves by playing music) Chicago musician back in the beginning of the year. This person was awful and it was obvious that no time and work went into the music. About a month after one of these horrible gigs I saw an article in the Chicago Tribute singing this horrible musician’s praises. After this happened this critic lost all credibility with me, but interestingly enough I’d read his articles before and took what he had to say seriously. A lot of the public’s opinions are greatly influenced by the media (primarily content on the internet). Whenever we want to get an opinion on a movie, computer, book, C.D., etc… we go the various websites that give ratings. This is a shame because things such as book and C.D. reviews are often very subjective. Instead of checking the ratings of some “grey” opinion website we should learn to formulate our own opinions without the influence of the “experts”.
12 Responses to 'Opinion Authority'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
All in all, we are our best experts. Only I can determine what will truly interest me once I get a taste of it. Taking the word of other people as fact without questioning them and their perspective is sheer ignorance. Printed material as well as that which is posted can equally be false, only an educated person will know the difference. Even things posted on this website, your post and my comment might be completely outlandish. The fact that I’m believing what you say about the critic and musician is ignorance to some extent. How do I know that I can trust you? In this case, I know you personally, off the internet. Similarly, the way to “prove” credibility for other online materials is to post the authors credentials. So if a person graduated from Harvard law school, does that mean that they have the credentials to write on anything? Or just law stuff? Earlier today I read an article on a website about religion and politics. The author founded a website on christianity and LGBT politics. She is also a pastor of sorts. This information was posted after her article. Did this information add more credibility to her work after I read the article? Yeah. Could it be a lie…yeah. In the end, it all comes down to the fact that I agreed with what she wrote. So now we enter the problem of believing sophists…
Lihy E.
27 Nov 08 at 4:01 pm
Dan, I hear what you’re saying, because since reviews of art must be subjective and there is no real way to quantify artistic talent, it is equally impossible to find a “perfect” review. However, I find reviews an extremely valuable time saver, because so much material is so clearly poorly crafted. I’m speaking primarily of movie reviews, but it is rare for me to enjoy a movie with unanimously negative reviews.
So, on artistic issues, we certainly can’t take the word of all “experts” as fact, but I don’t think we should completely ignore what everyone says, either (especially if you have the fortune of finding a critic you usually agree with).
I think talking about academic credibility is a bit of a different issue, since that information can be fact checked, at least to an extent. It’s a tough issue, and it makes me think of the time I watched this hilariously thought provoking movie “What the #$*! do we Know?” I sincerely hope some of you have seen it. It’s a riot. Truly.
Long story short, my friends and I rented it thinking that it was a scientific documentary about quantum mechanics, because it is advertised as all of these Ph.D’s having worked on it, including some stud from Columbia. It started out relatively believable, with Schrodinger’s cat and ya know… sciencey stuff. But as the movie went on it because increasingly apparent that some of the information was questionable, at best. By the end I was pretty curious about how many of the people interviewed actually had degrees, and about what the rest of the academic community thought of the film. As it turns out, this movie made Discover Magazines list of “worst science movies.” Dr. Columbia Professor was pissed off at the final product, and made it public, saying that his interview had been edited in a way that misrepresented what he said. Interestingly, one of the brains behind the operation ALSO had a Ph.D in physics, and had some agenda relating to a weird new agey group that he is a part of. So, what I took from the experience is that we can’t trust this guy even though he has a degree. But then, how can I trust Dr. Columbia, either? Where should I get my information on quantum physics?? Why do I, as a psychology major, even feel compelled to get information on quantum physics?! So many questions, so little time…
Katherine Anderson
28 Nov 08 at 1:42 am
*it BECAME increasingly apparent
Katherine Anderson
28 Nov 08 at 1:43 am
This is Descartes’s problem all over again. He came to the conclusion that he couldn’t take anyone’s word for it, he must discover the truth for himself. Even if we have criteria to judge trustworthiness, it’s tough to do if you’re not a music/LBGT/science expert. So it seems we’re coming to that same conclusion, we can’t trust anyone else’s opinion of music because it’s subjective or of science because we’re not sure who is the expert to trust.
And to Lihy, if you can’t trust the Harvard law professor to write about law, who should be writing about law?
Rebecca Spizzirri
28 Nov 08 at 1:33 pm
Arguably…law is subjective as well. I think it’s hilarious that Descartes comes up yet again. DO you really think it’s possible in this day and age to raze to the ground all that we know and believe? or even feel?
I think that the problem we need to ask ourselves is why aren’t we figuring things out for ourselves? If you want to watch a movie…and it seems good from the preview…just go see it. There are tons of movies that have been considered shit by critics that i loved. On the flip side, I saw No Country For Old Men, and it was such a disappointment even though the critics raved that it was perhaps the best film of the year. In terms of music, find a mechanism that allows you to have a taste and listen to various tunes. (Shameless plug for Pandora.com)
Everything in life is subjective to a degree…maybe not mathematics…most science is questionable…
Lihy E.
28 Nov 08 at 11:36 pm
There will always be some doubt in everything we read/hear, but we tend to trust the more “credible” sources. We trust experts a lot more than the average joe because the experts have spent a substantial amount of time being educated on a topic. Whether it be art, physics, literature, philosophy, psychology, etc… we will trust those who have really done their homework to know what they are talking about. I would tend not doubt what a Harvard law professor has to say on the topic of law because he/she has done a considerable amount of work to be educated to the level that it takes to be a Harvard professor. There is a difference between an opinion and a “valid” opinion. A “valid” opinion has concrete knowledge and reasoning behind it. It’s the difference between the Harvard law professor and the average joe’s opinion on a subjective topic in law. We trust valid opinions. I was giving the example of the Chicago Tribune music critic because usually critics have to show that they know what they are talking about before being hired for a major position in the media. Apparently not….
Dan Pierson
1 Dec 08 at 1:16 am
While Descartes is admirable for wanting to figure things out on his own, there comes a point when completely ignoring what everyone says simply isn’t practical. If I am in a hurry to drive home, and my mom calls to tell me there is construction and that I should take a different route, do I say to myself, “Well, she’s usually right, and she has no reason to lie to me, but ultimately I can only trust myself, so I will just ignore her advice to find out for sure if there is road construction.” No. That would be impractical.
When it comes to music, movies, and anything else in existence for entertainment rather than the pursuit of truth, I think Lihy has a point. In fact, I’m notorious for loving horrible music, and I’m more likely to enjoy something recommended by someone who knows absolutely nothing about music. However, the value of science is not based upon what makes us feel the best, because that is not what science is for. So, when it comes to science, I’m going to trust whoever knows the most about it.
Katherine Anderson
1 Dec 08 at 4:26 pm
Kat-
There’s music, film, literature, etc… that are only for entertainment purposes, but I’m talking about the music, movies, etc.. that is meant to be taken seriously. We trust the critic that has studied film more than the average joe’s opinion about what movies he thinks are “cool”.
Dan Pierson
1 Dec 08 at 10:32 pm
haha I’m listening to pandora as I write this.
anyway, it’s true that we trust critics’ and professionals’ opinions more than the average joe’s because we believe them to be more educated on the topic and therefore more knowledgeable, and humans have a strong desire to be right, or as close to right as possible. This deference to authority can be dangerous, however; sometimes it results in situations like Nazi Germany, where people become so trusting in authority that when the authority starts to make decisions that are less-than-reputable, the underlings don’t question it because the authority is doing it. There have been many experiments on this topic, and it is very difficult for people to speak up against authority; it requires conscious cognitive effort and consequent decision against the group, which is another inhibitor. It is just easier to go with decisions already set in motion than to stop and question them all the time. Not that this condones any of Nazi Germany or blind following of authority at all.
On that note, the reason we trust in critics and don’t “figure things out for ourselves,” Lihy, is because doing so takes a lot of time and effort. When you want to go see a movie, you have to pick one because you don’t have time to go watch 5 different movies and then decide what’s best. Hence the listening to critics. However, I do support going to see a movie if you think it’s going to be good even though the critics say it’s bad, just to see for yourself. Many people actually do this; people listen to critics, but not blindly.
Elena Solomon
5 Dec 08 at 12:37 pm
I’m not sure you can compare fine arts critics to the authority figures in things like the Stanford Prison Experiment, or certainly not the the leaders of Nazi Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
The most significant difference is that critics have far less potential to inspire negative actions. The worst they can do is prevent people from seeing an excellent performance or reading a notable book. Scientific experts are a better example, since their opinions do shape the masses and are much more difficult to dispute. I do not know as much about music as most critics, but anyone who claims that Andrew Bird isn’t an excellent lyricist will be met with a lengthy, informed diatribe against their musical ignorance.
Luke Kaiser
5 Dec 08 at 6:35 pm
Unlike our dear instructor Daniel, I think the word “wrong” should be used sparingly. I know this is nit-picky and pointless and has very little to do with your post, but what does that even mean when you say print materials can be “wrong”? If only anything could be so black and white as this word “wrong.” I think, however, it discounts the possibility of different arguments from different perspectives. In one sense, something could be completely wrong, but taken in a different sense, it could be a different matter entirely. Words like that have no real definition without context.
Calli Leventis
5 Dec 08 at 10:31 pm
I think that critics can only be trusted so much. These ‘experts’ may know things about their field, but people you know know you better. In other words, I think what friends tell you to see will have more impact upon you than what a critic does. Friends know your interests and tastes better and if they see a good movie and think you’ll like it, they will recommend it. This is completely anti-descartes, but oh well, he didn’t know everything…if he even existed. At the same time, critics have reviewed amazing movies and no one has seen them. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was an amazing movie, and yet it had a terrible box office run. So really, I think word of mouth and advertising plays a more important role than critics. Same for music in a sense, except advertising is changed to radio plays.
Jason Blumstein
5 Dec 08 at 11:03 pm