It takes time to search terms and figure out what it really being said. But I’d rather take the time then to live in a hive mind that TELLS me what to think
And then what? At the end of the day, unless you’re running the experiments yourself, you’re still putting your trust in another group of experts. Either you trust that they really did what they said they did and saw what they said they saw, or you trust another group to draw the correct conclusions from a collection of studies and what they know about the topic.
The unfortunate reality is that most people don’t have the skills required to critically read scientific literature.
It takes time to search terms and figure out what it really being said. But I’d rather take the time then to live in a hive mind that TELLS me what to think
But then do you ignore that research when the result is different than you expected? Like this one?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets
Or will you not claim exactly the opposite of what the article you provided shows when the topic comes up the next time around?
Because there is little point to doing your OwN rEsEaRcH if you are going to ignore the outcome anyhow when it doesn’t fit your worldview.
And then what? At the end of the day, unless you’re running the experiments yourself, you’re still putting your trust in another group of experts. Either you trust that they really did what they said they did and saw what they said they saw, or you trust another group to draw the correct conclusions from a collection of studies and what they know about the topic.
Perhaps you should start your own research here to understand why that doesn’t actually work the way you seem to think it does : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect