|m jayne||# Posted on August 9, 2012 at 7:40 pm|
First, I want to apologize because this didnt even come up (the @ mentions) here on He. I wasnt just ignoring them, they actually never came up. IF I had seen them right away I would have come back and addressed them right away.
. . .So anyway I totally missed them until I reviewed my emails from HE (which I have been doing because this keeps happening where they just dont show up at the top where they are supposed to -but only for some forums, and not others- and I end up not replying to things directed at me simply because I was never made aware that they happened and have only discovered the problem by going over threads that Id already posted in). But that is totally off-topic other than just to let you know why the fuck I took so long.
I agree that you can be aware of current events and have opinions on them without a masters in economics. Totally. Agree.
MY issue with the whole thing was that the replies were talking about the poll in a totally different way then the original forum prompt thing asserted the poll. So essentially, it appeared to me, as though the prompt was talking about a fruit and meaning oranges, and the answers were responding about fruit. . .but taking -fruit- to mean apples. . .using the apples vs. oranges thing.
The original poster( @buddha)s thing, as far as I can tell, was pretty much this (yes?)-
-Apparently, “37% of you are unsure what the economy’s future holds.” For the 37% of you who were honest, good for you.
Now this brings to light the ‘problem’ I mentioned. By your own votes and choices you are telling me that 63% of this site has the professional experience to deem how the economy will be in the future? That’s ridiculous, even after taking AP Econ in high school I had no idea where the economy was headed. Now I’m an economics major, so may I ask, do you even know what it means for the economy to get “better’?-
Mainly the last line, -“do you even know what it means for the economy to get “better’?”-
That was what I took as being their main deal. I could be wrong on that.
Personally, I think ( @buddha)s point is kind of stupid and nuts. Personally, I find that that he took something and asserted that it made implications which it may or may not have made and asserted that they absolutely did imply them. Personally, I think the poll is pretty clear that it is asking what direction people were leaning towards and their inclinations. Personally, I didnt think that the way the poll was worded implied KNOWING how the future would be because nobody KNOWS how the future will be because there as so many variables that it would be unrealistic to entertain even the idea that somebody could have their finger on all of them long enough to account for them all and then form a judgement and weight all of the possibilities. Personally, I think even suggesting that the question was intended to ask what people KNOW. . .because here, of all places, people should* be more aware of the multitude of crap which they do not, and perhaps cannot, know. So personally, by default, I agree with any and all of you that also feel the question was asking about opinions and not the legitimate answer to the future. -And also, by default, with the people who thought his point was point-less because the poll wasnt even implying what he asserted that it definitely was.
With that said, I actually had other issues with how things were going.
So then, in response to that whole thing, ( @trek79) posted a bunch of facts he knows about the economy and the implications he draws from those facts. Which is logical and fine. He explained his opinion. Heres a bunch stuff, heres what I think it means and why I think it means that. Totally cool. I think he defends why he voted the way he voted on the poll (which I assume, from what he stated, was that he thought it would probably have a long way to go yet). He also showed how someone without a masters could totally come up with a logical opinion on how he thought the economy would go from here.
He ends up saying that he thinks the economy is more fucked than not fucked (am I getting this right?). -But in the end does not really say he ‘KNOWS’ where the economy is going or not going and more that he can deduct a logical projection of the future of the economy from the things which he does know about the economy which does not have to include a formal education in economics. He also does not claim personal experience in the world of economics or that he has studied what people in economics class would be taught about including the -ins and outs- of that -under the hood- stuff that isnt just black and white. He also, does not explain how none of that -under the hood stuff- is just irrelevent and therefore does not have any impact of the validity or accuracy of his predictions (assuming that the poll DID imply more knowing, less personal-opinion-based).
But the guy ( @buddha), didnt actually seem to be talking about that AT ALL. He seemed to be talking about something closer to calculating the variables and predicting a reliable outcome based on them in accordance with what he (as a economics major) is taught to be -the formula-. This is my understanding though.
So I saw the original poster talking about one thing- specifically this poll, the wording of said poll and the implications there of, the intentions and context that people who voted took into consideration when making their vote, and why they thought they had worked out the math problem -essentially- with its calculated outcome without ever having actually learned said formula,
. . .then someone replying talking about the facts that he DID happen to have pursued on his own or happened upon or whatever that make him more educated in his hypothesis (and explained said hypothesis),
. . .and then the same person replying again to add that they have not actually studied economics but they know some stuff.
Is this making any sense or am I just talking around what I am trying to say here?
The same way my post didnt really make sense because I didnt explain how it directly tied into the post it was responding to, ( @trek79)s post didnt really explain how it tied directly into the post it was responding to. It said some stuff (which the validity or -point- of is irrevelant in this respect), but it didnt say why that stuff actually was directly related to what it was responding to. . .it didnt explain how it addressed what was said. . .it just said some stuff.