Victim Blame

bikeman01 wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Russell Orgazoid wrote:

That is a pretty offensive acticle IMO.

Is his PhD shit or legit? I say shit.

That’s not how things work. Saying one stupid thing doesn’t make everything else you say stupid.

It probably does. If you’re prepared to say stupid things in print the chances are you say alot more stupid things verbally. 

vonhelmet wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Russell Orgazoid wrote:

That is a pretty offensive acticle IMO.

Is his PhD shit or legit? I say shit.

That’s not how things work. Saying one stupid thing doesn’t make everything else you say stupid.

It probably does. If you’re prepared to say stupid things in print the chances are you say alot more stupid things verbally. 

Russell Orgazoid wrote:

Russell Orgazoid wrote:

That is a pretty offensive acticle IMO.

Is his PhD shit or legit? I say shit.

I couldn’t read it all, it

I couldn’t read it all, it just seemed like a ridiculous screed attempting to justify his inadequacies as a driver while still believing himself to be a driving god and being able to act as a spokesperson for all other driving gods.

I am also suspicious of anyone who has to big up the fact they have a phd.

hawkinspeter wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

If you can’t find out where his PhD is from, you’re not trying very hard, given his cv is on his website. It’s from northeastern university, which is apparently the 40th best university in the states. He’s got post doctorate fellowships at a couple of places including Berkeley. He’s the real deal, whether you like what he’s got to say or not. Play the ball, not the man. If nothing else, this particular man knows a lot more about visual perception than you do.

Yep, I agree with that – he has qualifications and we should examine his arguments and conclusions rather than focussing on whether he’s enough of an expert.

One thing that I don’t like (apart from his condescending attitude) is his comment that we shouldn’t try to change drivers’ behaviour as human behaviour is immutable, but then goes on to recommend that all cyclists have to change their behaviour. I’ve got doubts about his drunken pedestrian statistics but haven’t bothered to investigate further (there’s not much you can do about drunken pedestrians apart from avoiding them and if you are one yourself, then you’re probably not concentrating on being safe).

I’m constantly torn on the question of ‘qualifications’.

  “Credentialism” (the idea that you can’t have a view on something unless you have been accredited by some high-status group or instituion) is often just another system-of-power, closely related to the class system.  Most professions are indeed conspiracies against the laity, and a great many are more like a priesthood than anything really worthy of respect.

There’s an obvious tendency for flawed human beings to try and segue institutional and social power into excessive claims to knowledge that go beyond what is really justified by a rational assesment of the evidence.  Psychology (probably above all) and economics and even medicine are _riven_ with that.  Just look at the history of psychology in particular (not just bias and dubious interpretations, more than a few of its historical big names turn out to have commited outright scientific fraud, and many of its most notable experiments turn out to be unreproducible – its record is abysmal).

One can believe in the principle of scientific enquiry, but still be distrustful of the real-world political and social institutions that claim to be the guardians of that principle.

Just because someone is securely in the elite educated classes, doesn’t mean they have to be taken seriously.  Especially in regard to things they say outside of peer-reviewed journals (and even there – sometimes peer-review is just the same small group of people with shared assumptions agreeing with each other).

The problem is on the one hand I feel justified in my past deep cynicism about the likes of Hans Eysenck (who turns out to have been using fake data all along) or those who promote racial theories about IQ, or make ludicous biological-determinist arguments about things that are clearly sociological and political, but I don’t want to give an inch to climate-change deniers or creationists.

Just the opening paragraphs of that blog just says ‘technocrat with entirely unexamined conservative bias’ to me.  That someone so obviously motivated by politics is an ‘expert witness’ just demonstrates how flawed and biased the system of ‘expertise’ is. 

The fact that this is just a
The fact that this is just a diatribe written in length on his own (rather shit) website that it’s not worth reading.

Ok, I stand corrected in that
Ok, I stand corrected in that I missed the link to his CV. I was rather expecting the “Experience” page (or a more general About page) to give that kind of detail as it is important. And I was too willing to assume that if someone mentions their PhD frequently but neglects to give its origin, then there’s a nefarious reason.

But I stand by the rest of my post. The article is a polemic. It makes assertions that are difficult to support, and hence does not reference sources for them. Dr Green is happy to reference his visual perception sources, but where are the citations for the doubtless top notch papers that show that all cyclists are either militant or insane risk takers? And that all are unwilling or incapable of obeying traffic laws? And why is his supermarket run anecdote of relevance other than to reveal that when challenged, perhaps his subconscious mind realises that he needs to observe better?

As hawkinspeter notes, the idea that drivers are unable to improve their hazard perception seems odd, given that pilot training does just that. I completely understand, and in some ways agree that drivers are habitual, and there’s a lack of genuine concentration as they go through the motions. That famous video with the gorilla is perhaps an experimental parallel. But is there really nothing that can be done?

For what it’s worth, I agree with the idea that we all need to remember that roads are cooperative spaces and deviations from rules and norms may be dangerous. And having encountered many unlit idiots at night, I also think that each must be aware of their own visibility. Thirdly, I would quite like to know the expert, evidence-driven consensus on visibility. But this gentleman’s article is not anywhere near that.

If you can’t find out where
If you can’t find out where his PhD is from, you’re not trying very hard, given his cv is on his website. It’s from northeastern university, which is apparently the 40th best university in the states. He’s got post doctorate fellowships at a couple of places including Berkeley. He’s the real deal, whether you like what he’s got to say or not. Play the ball, not the man. If nothing else, this particular man knows a lot more about visual perception than you do.