One of the consequences of confirmation bias is that we are overly impressed by ideas that we happen to share. It’s a natural instinct, if not watched carefully. If you read something that reflects or resonates with your own views, you’ll agree with it. Upon agreeing with it, you’ll think it is highly persuasive. And if it’s highly persuasive, it’s probably brilliant. You see this often in the blogosphere when bloggers link to someone’s “superb” and “extremely insightful” post. You click on the link, and you’re underwhelmed by the post. But you realize it is strikingly similar to what the original linker thinks about the topic. It’s possible to take our blinders off, or, more realistically, to minimize them. But it often requires some work, and the amount of work that different people give varies considerably.
mikeyes says:
Let me be the first to say that I totally agree with your brilliant idea. (I am sure there will be others.)
August 4, 2010, 3:52 pmKamal says:
Orin, you may enjoy reading The Frontal Cortex (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/frontal-cortex/). This topic comes up often.
August 4, 2010, 4:00 pmSammy Finkelman says:
Can you (or someone else) give some examples of people linking to what they call a “brilliant” article that doesn’t strike you as brilliant at all, but just has a conclusion that the linker liked? I’d like to see what you are taklking about.
I don’t know – maybe for some people just the conclusion is enough to make something brilliant.
August 4, 2010, 4:07 pmWaste93 says:
The same can be said for media commentators when they speak of ‘brilliant’ politicians.
Though can the opposite also be said? If someone writes something that you disagree with do we automatically think they are stupid?
August 4, 2010, 4:09 pmbee says:
V. insightful.
August 4, 2010, 4:09 pmJPG says:
Geewhiz Sammy, is it really your first day on the Internet?
August 4, 2010, 4:11 pmAnderson says:
And of course the opposite applies. Some commenters here recently treated that AZ district judge as a hack for striking down part of that immigration law, simply because they already knew in advance that was the wrong answer.
(Some may also have praised her simply b/c they already knew in advance hers was the right answer.)
August 4, 2010, 4:12 pmBob from Ohio says:
A related form of this is when Blogger A says Blogger B “devestated” or “destroyed” or “pwned” Blogger/Writer C’s argument in a post. This is very common on both right and left.
Blogger A is really saying that he agrees with Blogger B and disagrees with Blogger C.
August 4, 2010, 4:13 pmwesley says:
Sammy, read Paul Krugman’s blog for a few days, something should turn up.
August 4, 2010, 4:13 pmAnon21 says:
Note that wesley’s view on this matter is based on rigorous and impartial consideration of Paul Krugman’s intelligence, work, and intellectual integrity. It has absolutely nothing to do with Krugman’s views on various political issues.
August 4, 2010, 4:17 pmleo marvin says:
When I recommend my extremist friends on any side of the various political/ideological spectra to a post like this one, they pass it around the echo chamber and everyone gets a good laugh at my confirmation bias.
August 4, 2010, 4:20 pmAdam B. says:
This is a thoughtful, well-reasoned post.
August 4, 2010, 4:29 pmkrs says:
Agreed with Bob from ohio. I hate that.
August 4, 2010, 4:32 pmA Law Dawg says:
I always figured Orin had a sharp mind, but this post really shows why he is one of the top tier bloggers on the Net. Confirmation bias is a pervasive problem and Orin’s deep analysis in this post blows it wide open. I will forward this to all my contacts.
August 4, 2010, 4:33 pmfinman says:
Note that Anon21′s views of Wesley’s view is based on a rigorous and impartial consideration of Paul Krugman’s intellectual integrity (while blogging). It has absolutely nothing to do with Krugman’s, or wesley’s, views on various political issues.
August 4, 2010, 4:34 pmRandy says:
A related issue, but one I think is also interesting.
One can view an artwork (painting, building, novel, poem, music, movie, whatever). Many people will claim they like the artwork, and also claim that it is good. On the other hand, they may dislike an artwork and also claim that it isn’t good.
Rare is the person who admits an artwork is good or brilliant, but that they don’t like it, or the opposite, that it is trash but they still like it.
In other words, when it comes to art criticism, most people will judge it’s artistic merits on whether they personally like it or not.
August 4, 2010, 4:38 pmU.Va. Grad says:
Fascinating insight, Orin. Perhaps I owe you a beer.
August 4, 2010, 4:38 pmDavid says:
I wonder if there isn’t something else going on as well – that many persons who link to the work of others are uncertain analysts and writers. Now that I’m thinking about it, it seems to me that we teach people to base their credibility on the writing of others very early in school. Thinking of the reports my fifth grader was writing last year, the teacher gave instruction on how to research and taught my daughter to write quotes on index cards. (I remember doing the same thing through law school and I find myself falling back to the practice when encountering a complex subject.) I, in turn, had to fill in the gap between the teacher’s instruction and the general prohibition on plagiarism. So, it strikes me that it should hardly be surprising that referencing the work of others in a blog is the favored tactic of those who, perhaps, lack the skill to make the same argument themselves.
Of course, there could also be a fair amount of laziness on the part of the referencing blogger – favoring a quick comment to recommend a view rather than articulating one themselves. Either way though, I shouldn’t think the practice should be taken as indicative of any particular attribute of the bloggers in question (myself included).
August 4, 2010, 4:39 pmRandy says:
John Waters is one person who is willing to admit that he likes things that are trashy and have no artistic merit whatsoever.
August 4, 2010, 4:40 pmDeezRightWingNutz says:
Randy, I know lots of people who readily admit to liking bad art (reality TV, etc.).
But, you’re right, I don’t hear of too many people saying “that X was a masterpiece, I hated it.” I do hear people say “I understand X is considered great by people who should know, but I don’t like it.” e.g., many people with classical music or Shakespeare.
August 4, 2010, 4:43 pmdirc says:
What is the objective standard by which art should be judged, independent of one’s likes or dislikes?
August 4, 2010, 4:45 pmdirc says:
What is the objective standard by which art should be judged, independent of one’s likes or dislikes?
August 4, 2010, 4:45 pmdirc says:
What is the objective standard by which art should be judged, independent of one’s likes or dislikes?
August 4, 2010, 4:45 pmMoneyrunner says:
When ideas like this are presented, Orin Kerr comes immediately to mind.
August 4, 2010, 4:47 pmCJColucci says:
Randy:
August 4, 2010, 4:48 pmI love really bad movies. (Anyone remember Joe Bob Briggs?) And I’ve often found that when something I don’t like is widely considered good (except when something is of a genre I just don’t care for, regardless of quality), I am often aware that I do not understand it. In that case, I’ll often say that I don’t get it and it doesn’t appeal to me, but express no view on whether it is, nevertheless, good.
Jim Darling says:
reflecting on Paul Krugman, whom I trust even though I can’t make head or tails of economics, I wonder to what extent confimation bias applies not only to conclusions we agree with but people we view as sharing similar beliefs. In other words, is there a confirmation bias creep that influences us to agree with propositions we wouldn’t naturally credit because someone we agere with in other ways says them? Or would you call that something else?
August 4, 2010, 4:49 pmDavid says:
CJColucci,
My wife and I have a similar reaction to champaign. We have a preference for cheep bottles of the “bubbly” but no one seems to believe us when we tell them so. Every year, at least one friend or relative will bring a bottle of “good” champaign and will say something to the effect of “I know you think you like the cheap stuff but you haven’t tried champaign until you have tried a bottle of…” We accept it graciously, promise that we will give it a “fair chance” and put it in the fridge. We invariably try it a week or two later and are not usually surprised that we don’t like it.
August 4, 2010, 4:55 pmDJR says:
I think Randy is on to something. It’s hard to imagine someone using an adjective like “insightful” when referring to an argument with which they disagree. Perhaps there is an implied qualifier to the word, and it actually means, “insightful (if you view the world the way I do).”
August 4, 2010, 4:56 pmUrso says:
Interesting you bring him up, because Krugman is one writer who I think is extremely smart even though I disagree with him often, and occasionally strongly.
August 4, 2010, 4:57 pmguy in the veal calf office says:
What does one call the opposite condition? I rexamine my positions when I find they are also held by people whose judgement I discount.
August 4, 2010, 5:05 pmMichael Drake says:
Indeed. Heh.
August 4, 2010, 6:19 pmBill Woods says:
“Wagner’s music is much better than it sounds.” (Mark Twain?)
August 4, 2010, 6:20 pmStruthius says:
When I am going over the syllabus of my history class, I tell the students that I picked the text because it is the most objective and least biased of any text I’ve seen. Then I ask the students what that really means. About one student a term (out of about 500) will correctly say “That means the author and you have the same biases.”
As to Randy’s point about art/etc: I can do that with movies. I can think of several movies that I detested but could see that they were great examples of cinematic art. E.g., American Beauty, Pulp Fiction.
August 4, 2010, 6:23 pmJames H says:
Brilliant, brilliant blog post. I’m going to frame it and put it up on my wall next to my diploma.
August 4, 2010, 6:31 pmJustin says:
Rethinking Vermuele’s argument? :)
In any event, shouldn’t the title be “People who agree with me are brilliant?” The post isn’t describing a phenomenom where, having read something by someone brilliant, you assume that it conforms with your worldview, right?
August 4, 2010, 7:06 pmDave Foulk says:
Very bright, brilliant…even sparklescent in nature.
August 4, 2010, 7:34 pmJPG says:
Not necessarily. Some people may have a way with words, an ability to describe and synthetize complex problematics, speak/write with eloquence, yet have an opinion contrary to mine and still be unable to make me change my views. For instance, I have the highest regards for Hayek’s oeuvre and look at his writings with some kind of admiration. I would have no problem to qualify him as a brilliant philosopher/economist. I would however never consider myself an hayekian, per se.
August 4, 2010, 7:39 pmDan D says:
What a mundane and pedestrian observation. For this kind of drivel you make your millions as a nationally-cited blogger and respected legal authority? How standards have declined…
August 4, 2010, 7:54 pmDan D says:
What a mundane and pedestrian observation. For this kind of drivel you make your millions as a nationally-cited blogger and respected legal authority? How standards have declined…
August 4, 2010, 7:57 pmAndrew Sullivan would be embarrassed to make such a weak post.
Pat says:
As the co-author of the book “Hollywood Hi-Fi,” the history of recordings by non-musical celebrities, I can honestly say that I’ve built a very enjoyable career/hobby out of a deep and profound appreciation for stuff that I readily admit is crap.
August 4, 2010, 7:58 pmmbabbitt says:
Surely, I practiced confirmation bias when I was a liberal. When I became a conservative it became clear that confirmation bias is what keeps the ball rolling. Now, as a conservative, I am more cognizant of this human weakness. However, with the press being so pro-liberal, I can see how easy it is to stay blindly loyal to the liberal pack if a liberal and why conservatives hate the press so much. I like conservatism but if you live in a liberal region of the country as I do it is not easy to change nor easy to accept living in such a hostile, anti conservative environment. I wish liberals could be conservatives for a day and see how nuts their reinforced stereotypes are.
August 4, 2010, 8:16 pmGadfly says:
I took your advice and applied my critical faculties. I find your post to be rather uninsightful and ordinary. Of course everything I agree with is brilliant and eminently persuasive–that’s not news! In fact, I find myself agreeing with the theories of Albert Einstein all the time. I hate to break it to you, but your post isn’t exactly cutting edge. Let me know when you figure out something really novel, like time travel or teleportation.
August 4, 2010, 8:31 pmgeokstr says:
The obvious objective standard to judging art is whether the colors match the decor of the room you plan to hang it in.
August 4, 2010, 8:56 pmgeokstr says:
Randy:
Your comment about judging art also reminded me of this Steve Martin monoloque from “LA Story”:
August 4, 2010, 9:02 pmObiJohn says:
“The mark of an intelligent man is how closely he agrees with you.” :-)
August 4, 2010, 9:05 pmHa! « A Moral Outrage says:
[...] August 4, 2010 Brilliant People Agree With Me [...]
August 4, 2010, 9:14 pmjrose says:
I agree completely with this incredibly mundane post.
August 4, 2010, 9:14 pmThe Awful Truth says:
I think the profusion of terms like “briliant”, and “superb” on the internet is due to something more than confirmation bias. I blame it on the what I call the “Liptonization” of American culture.
James Lipton started his Inside the Actor’s Studio show in the mid 90s. It was the most disgusting display of fawning, bootlicking and leg humping ever seen on television. Initially he interviews actors/directors with long and distinguished careers like Paul Newman and Sidney Lumet. So although his fawning was overtop, it was almost tolerable. Soon Will Smith and Matt Dillon were getting the same treatment. It didn’t take much to inspire abject worship from Lipton.
During the mid to late 90s, I began to notice the same style infecting the culture more generally. I don’t think this was due to Lipton’s influence, he was just the canary in the gush coal mine.
In book reviews, he became common almost de rigueur to call all history books that the reviewer liked “magisterial”. I can’t believe that there are more than 2-3 history books a year that truly qualify for the term, but the NYT reviewers seemed to find at least one per week. At the same time all works of fiction seemed to have “luminous” prose.
Another example is the constant use of “smart”. All movies, TV shows or political commentators that someone likes seem to get tagged as smart. Perhaps the most pathetic aspect of the Journalist affair is Ezra Klein constant use of the term “smart”. The policy conversations were ‘smart”, the members were “smart”, they were drafting statements that were “smart”. Gee Ezra don’t tell us how smart you and your friends are— show us.
August 4, 2010, 9:35 pmthere ought to be a license for art says:
I mean, each character has his own story. The puppy is a bit too much, but you have to over look things like that in these kinds of paintings. The way he’s *holding* her… it’s almost… filthy. I mean, he’s about to kiss her and she’s pulling away.
He shouldn’t overlook how that puppy doesn’t want to watch them. Too much.
August 4, 2010, 9:37 pmTLM says:
Obviously, there’s a downside to confirmation bias — in some situations, but not necessarily all (eg, I agree with George Will and think he is very insightful in the way he rebuts Paul Krugman’s prescription for fixing the economy. My bias is not limited to favoring Mr. Will. I have a strong bias against any economist who has been awarded a Prize by the very liberally biased Nobel Committee). Thus, this bias on my part against certain economists has possibly caused me to remain as ignorant of economics as our president.
On the other hand, if you believe confirmation bias is a natural instinct, or at least very prevalent in humans, then you might have to conclude that it has a certain utility in making decisions. The scientific precepts of evolutionary biology would sort of require that.
August 4, 2010, 9:52 pmEd Driscoll » Paul Krugman’s Three-Inch Salute says:
[...] it’s no fun when the Confirmation Bias you’re used to stops [...]
August 4, 2010, 9:54 pmcdunnrun says:
I happen to agree with the original thesis, but still:
Wouldn’t a **perfectly objective person** reason as follows:
1. Based upon the same evidence, Person A and I both reached conclusion B
2. It is therefore likely that Person A **thinks objectively** (or else reached conclusion B by chance)
3. I can to that extent trust Person A to reach objective conclusions C, D, E etc.,
4. Person A is brilliant!
In other words, what if you happen to be right about an issue? Is confirmation bias still at play?
** = verrry large salt grains, and ignoring any hubris my hypothetical person would have
August 4, 2010, 10:10 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Randy,
Rare is the person who admits an artwork is good or brilliant, but that they don’t like it, or the opposite, that it is trash but they still like it.
Oh, horsepucky. I’ve never met a good musician who wouldn’t cheerfully confess to liking at least some music that s/he’d happily label crap. And most of us acknowledge the existence of great music that leaves us cold. I am never going to feel about Wagner the way one friend of mine does; he’s never going to feel about Haydn the way I do. Both of us would say unhesitatingly that both are great composers.
In other words, when it comes to art criticism, most people will judge it[’]s artistic merits on whether they personally like it or not.
See above. If that’s what you do yourself, I’m sorry. I’d advise you to try not to; you never know what might change your mind.
August 4, 2010, 10:17 pmPeter Shalen says:
As S.J. Perelman put it, “I don’t know anything about medicine, but I know what I like.”
August 4, 2010, 10:57 pmDaniel says:
I find that most people that I hear discuss art are very unsure of their own judgment and defer to what they believe to be the “sophisticated” or generally accepted view of the merits of a work of art. It is the same way that they accept liberal politics.
August 4, 2010, 11:05 pmPenny says:
Ah! But the trick is to have brilliant contrarians agree with you, Mr. Kerr.
Surely they have no “confirmation bias”?
August 5, 2010, 12:11 amSarcastro says:
But not the other way around! Conservatives are what you get when yoy take away the bias.
August 5, 2010, 12:25 amDaveR says:
There was an article several years ago which postulated that judges, being attornies themselves, will sometimes reach their conclusions and opinions based on the expectations of, and their identification with, their former peers and not entirely on the merits of the case. That would be, I guess, a case of people becoming brilliant because the brilliant agree; “Brilliant judge, Judge XX. Agrees with me on every point!”
August 5, 2010, 12:29 amI can’t google the citation. All my queries end with judges and procedural approvals, not emotional ones.
Orin Kerr says:
What a mundane and pedestrian observation. For this kind of drivel you make your millions as a nationally-cited blogger and respected legal authority? How standards have declined…
Andrew Sullivan would be embarrassed to make such a weak post.
Fortunately, I am not Andrew Sullivan.
August 5, 2010, 12:30 amPenny says:
“On the other hand, if you believe confirmation bias is a natural instinct, or at least very prevalent in humans, then you might have to conclude that it has a certain utility in making decisions. The scientific precepts of evolutionary biology would sort of require that.”
Or perhaps you might find that confirmation bias is entirely TOO utilitarian when making decisions?
Counting “agreeable heads” hardly ensures an OPTIMUM outcome.
August 5, 2010, 12:40 amMrBuddwing says:
Previous poster: I think the profusion of terms like “briliant”, and “superb” on the internet is due to something more than confirmation bias. I blame it on the what I call the “Liptonization” of American culture. James Lipton started his Inside the Actor’s Studio show in the mid 90s. It was the most disgusting display of fawning, bootlicking and leg humping ever seen on television.
Never heard of David Frost, eh? (Super!)
August 5, 2010, 1:07 amPenny says:
Apparently the “trick” at this website is to “approve” comments slowly? Whereupon I must say…
Your sand just stuck in my craw!
Some are here, sir, to let the grains fall gracefully through an hourglass, ensuring we get to bed on time.
So?
Orin Kerr is an obstructionist? An anti-bedist?
Perhaps he is just “disagreeable”? Tonight?
Surely this says nothing about my own “brilliance”?
August 5, 2010, 2:31 amIronE says:
See Lithwick’s endorsement of Walker’s decision as “brilliant.” <http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/.
August 5, 2010, 3:12 amReed the Viking says:
Obama Does Not Like Soylent Green…
A few days ago, I wrote about my sister and how she thought Lady GaGa was saying “Bon Jovi romance” in her song “Bad Romance.” My older brother read the post, and when I called him, he told me that he too heard some misleading lyrics. He heard that…
August 5, 2010, 3:31 amM. Simon says:
I’m sure you are brilliant. Don’t you agree that Global Warming Will Enhance Erectile Function?
From one enthusiastic participant: “With another doubling of CO2 I could go all night.”
August 5, 2010, 3:35 amLem says:
This was a superb and extremely insightful post ;)
August 5, 2010, 5:37 amDan D says:
Orin, just to be clear, the previous post was entirely tongue in cheek. Most especially the Andrew Sullivan reference! Unless you really are making millions as a blogger, then I might reconsider…
August 5, 2010, 9:41 amA. Criminal says:
All three of those guys are wrong.
We all know about the “kitsch” stereotype from that one Simpsons episode.
August 5, 2010, 10:54 amCJColucci says:
Pat: OMG! I have all the Golden Throats albums. (Once, when my wife was depressed, I put William Shatner’s “It Was a Very Good Year” on the turntable. She broke out into hysterical laughter and immediately felt better.)I’ll be sure to get on the list for your new, updated edition.
August 5, 2010, 11:00 amOrin Kerr says:
Dan D,
Yes, so I figured — too bad the “millions” line was the big tip-off.
August 5, 2010, 12:46 pmDan D says:
Orin, the millions was the small tip-off. Andrew Sullivan being embarrassed? That was the big tip-off
August 5, 2010, 2:15 pmrichard40 says:
I have a left leaning friend at work, while I am libertarian/conservative. But we are both fairly cordial in our debates, so he serves as a good check on my right wing confirmation bias, and I hope I am a check on his bias as well.
This is one reason why I think the biggest need in academia, journalism, and entertainment right now is not racial/ethnic diversity, but viewpoint diversity. They suffer badly from confirmation bias. Unfortunately, for all the professed “openness” and desire for “diversity” on the left, they tend to be extremely resistent to any viewpoint diversity. The right is a little better, since they often have to confront idealogically hostile individuals in all these forums, and are therefore less shocked when somebody attacks their viewpoints.
The blogosphere is very good on idealogical diversity, but has a potential problem if blog readers only look at blogs that confirm their biases.
August 5, 2010, 7:41 pmNorthern Dave says:
“Only sick music makes money today; our big theaters subsist on Wagner.” – Nietzsche
Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy: “Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal.”
Brilliance does tend to be in the eye of the beholder, n’est pas? (or to address Orin’s point I have found “Brilliance” tends to rely on suppositions supporting Weltanschauungs).
This reminds me of an argument I once had with an old school-mate who went on to get her PhD in English. I maintained (and still do) that content cannot be separated from form in analyzing a work. She rejected that and held that the two were quite differential……
August 5, 2010, 9:51 pmNorthern Dave says:
Love it. The “Let’s all invade France.” – confirmation bias held by a few folks a couple of times last century leading to less than optimum outcome. (Corollary: “Let’s invade Russia.” – confirmation bias held on a regular basis throughout history, see Nevsky, Napoleon, etc., leading to less than optimum outcomes…)
August 5, 2010, 9:56 pmel polacko says:
duh.
August 6, 2010, 12:26 amTLM says:
Or Afghanistan, right?
The point was that linking to an article to read is a lot different than, say, invading a country. Confirmation bias per se wasn’t the cause for WWII. That would be a bit too simplistic to suggest even for the social science researchers who test people for “natural instincts”.
The utility part of confirmation bias that I referred to doesn’t relate to big ideas or big decisions. Many of the things we think, do or say on a daily basis are done “without thinking”, and if analyzed would fail a test for bias, supposition etc. If we spent every waking moment excluding such forms of thinking, we’d wind up like Nietzsche at the end of his life.
August 6, 2010, 7:47 amSmedley says:
404 Not Found
August 6, 2010, 9:55 amalan says:
The Zen masters figured out why that is so.
August 6, 2010, 10:22 amalan says:
The Zen masters figured out why that is so.
August 6, 2010, 10:22 ampissed off at retards like you says:
thanks for wasting our time. you said absolutely nothing relevant or useful.
August 6, 2010, 10:31 amAvaron says:
To dirc: The objective standard in art and literature is whether it survives the test of time.
August 6, 2010, 10:55 amAvaron says:
To dirc: The objective standard in art and literature is whether it survives the test of time.
August 6, 2010, 10:55 amisabella clark says:
Perhaps if you could spell champagne you might experience je ne sias quoi of a “good” bottle of it.
August 6, 2010, 11:26 amTimj says:
Sometimes we are impressed with an article that we happen to agree with because the article states the premise particularly well. Often we hold values that are not fully fleshed or coalesced. Good writing can help shape those thoughts.
August 6, 2010, 11:48 amPeter Shalen says:
Yes, exactly. In fact your well-written comment is itself an example. Thanks.
August 6, 2010, 12:03 pmdemonyc says:
what about the people that say their position is “just common sense”? i’ve heard that from rather extremist people who i deeply disagree with. are they saying that their realization of the clarity of a conclusion is brilliant? or are they really disproving your hypothosis?
one thing that keeps my ego down is something trebek said on jeopardy, “it’s easy if you know it”.
August 6, 2010, 1:48 pmSammy Finkelman says:
SF> Can you (or someone else) give some examples of people linking to what they call a “brilliant” article that doesn’t strike you as brilliant at all, but just has a conclusion that the linker liked? I’d like to see what you are talking about
This is one of the things that are extremely difficult to search for. I have read citations, but the person is not necessarily saying someone else is brilliant. At most they are only saying – this other person has said it better than I can, which is not the sdame thing. Or here is somnebody with high status who has said this. Neither of these cases is of someone claiming another post is either “superb” and “extremely insightful”
So I’d like to know what Orin is talking about. Is that what is really happening there?
Now I know it is extremely hard to come up with examples of something when put on the spot. You can sort of know something is true without being able to come up with any examples. The only way to really do this is to save the examples as they come up.
I don’t think this is something can search for.
But I will try.
I did find this one:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/104105
A SUPERB AND INSIGHTFUL POST from Orin Kerr. Really, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Notice here he has his reason for linking that it was said better.
Aside from that trivial example, I did find (using the search term “insightful” rather than “superb” which is apparently never really used at all: (I did bias it toward the last week)
http://coloreddemos.blogspot.com/2010/08/insightful-observations-on-race.html
Insightful Observations on Race
Nate Sliver at the fivethirtyeight blog made two insightful comments about race in a post in which he sought to understand who in the media has been driving the “conversations” on race that we’ve been having lately.
You can’t say this is cvonformation bias, because maybe Guy-Uriel Charles didn’t think this before, but it was only after reading it that it occured to him these were very good thoughts.
He writes: The insights are that (a) the conversation about race is mostly a conversation between white elites and (b) they are not serious about racial equality. My own view is that Nate is totally right.
(Looking at the Nate Silver post http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/conservative-liberal-sites-both-fueling.html it doesn’t look like he’s really saying that at all.
and this:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/03/retweet_m/
Want A Retweet? Be Insightful, Or At Least Link To Someone Who Is
August 6, 2010, 2:52 pmGerald Fnord says:
Another variation (inverse?): when I see someone with whom I agree make a bad argument for it, it bothers a great deal—both because it weakens the average strength of case, and because it makes me wonder if I’m not wrong.
August 7, 2010, 8:33 amIs Judge Walker’s Opinion Really that Compelling? | theConstitutional.org says:
[...] By now I’ve read dozens of blog posts and commentaries attesting to the power and persuasiveness of Judge Walker’s opinion striking down California’s Proposition 8 barring gay marriage. But as far as I can tell, everyone I’ve seen take this position was predisposed to accept Judge Walker’s conclusion. Lots of supporters of gay marriage and academics who believe it is a constitutional right celebrate the force of Judge Walker’s reasoning. But what I have yet to see is someone who opposed the legal arguments, or at least approached them as a skeptic, announcing that Judge Walker’s opinion has changed, or at least shaken, their views on the matter. In other words, the commentary on Judge Walker’s opinion is a perfect example of confirmation bias. [...]
August 7, 2010, 1:33 pmPeople Who Disagree With Me Are Just Arguing In Bad Faith | theConstitutional.org says:
[...] explained before why brilliant people agree with me. I want to talk about the other side of the picture. I’ve come to the realization that people who [...]
August 17, 2010, 5:50 am“The Drug Enforcement Administration Is Seeking Ebonics Translators to Interpret Wire-Tapped Conversations” | theConstitutional.org says:
[...] McWhorter’s work, and his comments on this in particular struck me as quite apt. Plus he and I agree on what an awful name “Ebonics” [...]
September 8, 2010, 12:46 am