I’m starting a new tag for TDE blog posts: Great Reset Watch.
When I read an article, op-ed, or essay that proposes something that smells like it’s part of the insidious Great Reset idea, I’ll post it here with, of course, with as much vituperative commentary I can muster while still claiming to be spreading the love incumbent on a Catholic.
The most-recent story I saw that triggered this idea? An op-ed in New York Times that urged people not to use critical thinking and, instead, rely on the experts. The writer apparently argues that, in this age of short and captive attention, the unwashed simply don’t have the time or mental acuity to form valid opinions, so instead of thinking about information fed to them by the experts, they should just accept the experts’ opinions, then move on to the next NASCAR race.
I’m not kidding.
My favorite Jewish anti-Semite, David Cole, wrote about it just yesterday.
“In ‘Don’t Go Down the Rabbit Hole‘ BuzzFeed technology writer Charlie Warzel argues that ‘critical thinking, as we’re taught to do it, isn’t helping in the fight against misinformation.’ Relying on the work of Professor Michael Caulfield of Washington State University, Warzel declares that the traditional belief that people should be ‘taught to evaluate and think critically about information’ is ‘fundamentally flawed.’
“Caulfield insists that people should not be encouraged to ‘use reasoning,’ because ‘that strategy can completely backfire.’ Go by the source, not the information. Good source? Accept the info. Wikipedia-unapproved source? Reject the info. But don’t think about the info.
“‘People learn to think critically by focusing on something and contemplating it deeply—to follow the information’s logic and the inconsistencies. That natural human mind-set is a liability in an attention economy,’ Warzel argues. So don’t do it. Don’t look deep. Caulfield’s methodology ‘focuses on making quick judgments’ because ‘you often make a better decision with less information than you do with more.’
“‘You often make a better decision with less information than you do with more.’ A NYT op-ed actually promoted that idea. . . .
“The past year has seen Americans at the mercy of ‘researchers’ and the reporters who pick and choose which ‘experts’ to champion. Because of researchers, Americans have been locked down, denied schooling, denied work, masked, double-masked, probably soon triple-masked. BLM broke all lockdown rules, so researchers said, ‘That’s cool, our research proves that their lockdown-breaking helps the pandemic, while yours does not,’ and reporters said, ‘Right on!'”
“To be fair, much of the scientific research regarding Covid is indeed beyond the ken of non-scientists. And I’d go so far as to say that the biggest problem with the ever-changing recommendations regarding masks, transmissibility, ventilators, etc., is not that the researchers are crooked, but that they’re afraid to admit how little they actually know. Their “trust the science” admonition only harms their own credibility when “the science” changes. ‘We’re in uncharted waters; bear with us’ is a lot better than ‘TRUST THE SCIENCE, PLEBES!’ But the former requires humility, whereas the latter unlocks the God complex lurking beneath most lab coats.”