Building on his enormously successful first edition. Tom Nichols confirms his thesis and proves that the assault on expertise has only intensified.
So, outside of selling books and building a following, you didn’t succeed — at all. But who cares about the efficacy of efforts when failure is a pretty profitable enterprise these days. When a deservingly popular book didn’t make a dent in 7 years (and everything’s gotten worse to boot): I fail to understand the excitement for an expanded edition doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making a dent either.
Such questions do not compute with this crowd or any other:
Congratulating yourselves for ordering a book and broadcasting it for Likes: It’s all so goddamn pointless (as there’s no purpose beyond pretending you’re part of some glorious pursuit of the truth and what’s right). Never mind you all refuse to listen to any expertise that challenges you — which flies in the face of the whole fu@%ing point!
That cat is so fitting for the folly of our times:
“And now, even now” . . .
The cat . . . TOTALLY out of the BAG!
When I saw Tom Nichols touting his upcoming book in a Tweet, I had to laugh — as the tragedy of it all is so comical anymore.
Looking forward to this, Tom. Like Serling, you were definitely ahead of the curve. I’ve referred to this book repeatedly since it first came out, so the idea of an updated version sounds very appealing.
No, he wasn’t — I was
Six years ahead of Social Dilemma and three ahead of his book that accomplished exactly what that doc did and everything else: Nothing! In fact, it’s far worse — because you never learn anything from your failures, mistakes, and what doesn’t work. But what do I know? I’m just the guy with an impeccable track record for the truth and seeing the lay of the land in ways no one else did and still doesn’t.
Your followers are so passionate about expertise — that they blow off the person who was years ahead of you in explaining this problem (and in far more sophisticated ways):
Not to mention offering real-world ideas on what to do about it.
The same person telling you that new edition has exactly zero chance of doing of any better than the first (in actually accomplishing anything). And when that prediction comes true (and my track record for the truth & seeing the lay of the land is impeccable): All your audience will care about is congratulating you when you come along advertising the 3rd edition (waiting in line for the signed copy they crave).
Unbelievable!
In a culture where even a PhD acts like an imbecile in the face of overtures he doesn’t instantly understand: Conventional methods aren’t gonna make a dent in the envelope of intransigence encasing hermetically sealed minds of our times. “Wut?” — reflects a society tuning in to people you think are geniuses for telling you what you wanna hear and thinking you’re enlightened for it.
The smorgasbord of sub-cultures has created another dimension of delusion in America — hardening minds not broadening them. The commentary in these communities speaks volumes about social media and the state of society: Habitually hailing high praise for purveyors of virtue — virtues that vanish the second they’re called to put them to the test.
As I said in my documentary:
It’s astounding how the mind can pull off psychological gymnastics that allow us to believe what we say without any sense of accounting for it.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act V
Left & Right . . .
Whatever your aims — you’ve got a crowd to comfort you:
And above all else
This Helped Shape That:
The rotor speed required to separate uranium isotopes doesn’t care who’s president, and when it comes to ascertaining the truth, neither do I. In order to maintain such speeds, the material properties of centrifuges are as critical as it gets. You don’t need to interview a world-renowned nuclear scientist to figure that out — but I like to be thorough. To claim that Iraq WMD wasn’t a lie should be like saying we didn’t land on the moon.
As I wrote and produced the most exhaustive documentary ever done on WMD, I would know.
D.O.E.’s standard is to spin a tube at 20% above 90,000 RPM before failure — so 48,000 short is a pretty loose definition of ‘rough indication.’ And since the entire point of testing should be to replicate the conditions of centrifuges, one would think that the full-blown testing would be performed before the N.I.E. was completed.
even 20 years later
Half the country still can’t get this straight:
By Design
America Remains Mired in the Murky
What does it say to you: That on evidence claimed as components to build a nuclear bomb — the “debate” was hijacked by 10-second sound bites? Shouldn’t any debate establish what the debate is actually about? What does it say about a country that can’t even establish that much on a matter of this magnitude? As I said in my doc:
All the sarin gas shells in the world would have no bearing on the aluminum tubes and other intel, but loyalists to logical fallacies are not burdened by the inconvenience of FACT.
They will nitpick over pebbles while refusing to even glance at the mountain of evidence that crushes their “convictions.”
— Richard W. Memmer: Act V
For the sake of argument: Let’s say Saddam had full-blown active WMD programs on chemical & biological weapons. The tubes would still be a lie — whether the war would have been justified in that scenario or not. I’ll go one further: Let’s say he had a uranium enrichment program in operation as well, but that the rotors were carbon fiber — not aluminum. Once again, the tubes would still be a lie.
Getting lucky in finding something you didn’t know about — does not absolve you from a case that was woven out of whole cloth.
I defy you to find a single instance of anyone on the Right even attempting to make an argument on the dimensions, material, and quantity of the tubes. You’ll be lucky to find them mentioned at all. You think it’s just a coincidence that all the “arguments” on the Right just happen to follow the same pattern (conveniently leaving out the marquee claim on a mushroom cloud)?
That — all by itself, speaks volumes:
To anyone who thinks world-altering wars are more important than whining about websites that expose painfully obvious lies, anyway.
If only you’d laid it all out exactly as I like it — then I’d abide by the principles I preach
Is that how it works?
That’s about the size of it. I guess I figured that if you didn’t understand something — you’d try this on for size, but I’m old-fashioned that way:
Funny how there’s always an excuse . . .
Back in the day — there was no website with an array of illustrations to gripe about. I was just sharing Trillion Dollar Tube to all these fine folks flaunting their badge of beliefs so F.A.I.R.
Showing some courtesy for a 5-minute excerpt doesn’t seem like much to ask such bastions of virtue. But without watching one second — self-satisfied scorn was your gold standard for gleefully gutting the truth.
And why mess with tradition?
The road to reality is blocked by detours designed to keep you going in circles. Purveyors of poppycock reroute you with narratives that avoid detail like Black Death. The way out is to start with an inconsistency or two that’s narrow in scope — and take the trail where it leads. To ascertain the truth on any topic: If you’ve got something concrete to go on — that’s your point of entry. By all means, keep the door open in every direction. But by nailing down the definitive first, it paves a clearer path to all the rest.
This country does the exact opposite on everything — lumping it all together and never even approaching where you should have started in the first place:
This chart is misleading in several respects . . . Beams centrifuge never actually worked . . . We can infer . . .
Sounds pretty sloppy to me . . .
Perhaps we should have a conversation to clear up what all this means on issues that have eroded reason beyond recognition?
Behold my “hatred” of Thomas Sowell:
Never mind this . . .
Not to mention this
Speaking of sleight of hand . . .
The administration had its hands on 60,000 tubes, and yet not one of them was presented by Powell at the U.N. According to HUBRIS, they scrapped the idea of displaying a tube — since Powell would be holding up the one piece of evidence that was most in dispute.
— Richard W. Memmer: Prologue
There was even talk of Powell holding up one of the tubes for dramatic effect. But a veteran communications strategist in the room balked. “If you do that, it will be on the front page of every paper the next day,” noted Anna Perez, Condoleezza Rice’s chief of communications.
“Do you really want to do that?” Perez had a feel for these things; she had worked for Walt Disney, Chevron, and a top Hollywood talent agency.
This would, she thought, be an awkward visual. Powell would be holding up the one piece of evidence that was most in dispute. Everybody would focus on that. The idea was scrapped.
Think about that
You’ve got 60,000 of ’em:
But rather than put a single sample of your hard evidence on display for all the world to see . . .
You put it a PowerPoint?
And it just makes me laugh that they tossed that tape measure in there for effect (particularly because it’s the wall thickness that’s of paramount importance). The sheer sloppiness of it all — it’s just pathetic. I’ll put my presentations in COM 101 against this crap any day. But strictly speaking — purely on the principles of persuasive speech:
Since their goal was to manipulate the masses — she was spot-on by concealing what they displayed.
What is uranium enrichment?
You’ve probably heard of yellowcake — how about uranium hexafluoride? Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? Never mind this story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot.
How so? How I’d love to live in a world where you’d ask not out of party-line pursuits — but because it’s on the trail to the truth.
The question comes down to whether or not you’re basing your belief on something in the realm of reason — not some fail-safe fantasy that allows you to believe whatever you want.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act III
Speaking of the moon
Not the tiniest trace of reasoning or molecule of courtesy can be found in anything I’ve come across in decades of dealing with the doubt-free on WMD. And of all those I’ve challenged — their knowledge combined could fit into a thimble with space to spare.
I’d suggest heading on back to that backwater school, Purdue, for a little more indoctrination, er, I mean education.
“BACKWATER SCHOOL“
To call the Cradle of Astronauts “backwater” is award-worthy for asinine statements.
The “arguments” of “Expert” By Association — taking cue from his kin on Rolodex of Ridicule:
- “You use words like honor, courage and commitment as punch lines at liberal cocktail parties” — ripping off A Few Good Men and thinking I wouldn’t notice
- The “Get help!” routine
- “Academia”
- “I’ve stood on the wall — have you?” — Jesus, why not toss in “You weep for Santiago” while you’re at it?
What does any of THAT have to do with the price of tea in China — or THIS?
Out of 31 tubes in subsequent testing, only one was successfully spun to 90,000 RPM for 65 minutes — which the C.I.A. seized on as evidence in their favor.
One D.O.E. analyst offered a superb analogy of that contorted conclusion: “Running your car up to 6,500 RPM briefly does not prove that you can run your car at 6,500 RPM cross country. It just doesn’t. Your car’s not going to make it.”
In an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter, these guys were playing horseshoes with centrifuge physics . . .
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
Or Not . . .
Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party
Stirring Defense
Anything Goes for apologists trying to preserve what they perceive. I know their Rolodex of Ridicule rabbit-hole routine — all too well:
And Now for the Weather . . .
As I said in my doc:
The question comes down to whether or not you’re basing your belief on something in the realm of reason — not some fail-safe fantasy that allows you to believe whatever you want.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act III
In the face of all that
Right Along with This . . .
All That Follows & Far More
This — is Your Answer?
Coming this winter, the updated Death of Expertise . . .
I’m a big fan of the book: Just not of fanfare for what predictably failed and will again.
Winter is coming
And so is an updated & expanded edition of The Death of Expertise. When I saw Tom Nichols touting his upcoming book in a Tweet, I had to laugh — as the tragedy of it all is so comical anymore.
Looking forward to this, Tom. Like Serling, you were definitely ahead of the curve. I’ve referred to this book repeatedly since it first came out, so the idea of an updated version sounds very appealing.
No, he wasn’t — I was
Six years ahead of Social Dilemma and three ahead of his book that accomplished exactly what that doc did and everything else: Not a goddamn thing! In fact, it’s far worse — because you never learn anything from your failures, mistakes, and what doesn’t work.
And you’ve got company!
When a deservingly popular book didn’t make a dent in 7 years (and everything’s gotten worse to boot): I fail to understand your excitement for an expanded edition doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making a dent either. The ultimate irony is he’d sell a ton more books with what I have in mind.
Do you wanna sell books or solve problems? Hear me out and you can do both.
At this rate, we could have made it an annual series
OR
Reconsider your success in another predictable failure. I’m sure it’ll sell and that it’s great work — but it’s not going to work. Hear me out on how my idea will work and I don’t even need it to sell. I was going to begin by writing, “I bought that book the year it came out,” but I wanted to verify just to make sure:
That I took a moment to confirm what I was damn near certain of — should tell you something all by itself (so should the fact that I was writing about “death of expertise” long before I ever heard of him). Not to mention that my doc is entirely on expertise at the highest levels.
But to give credit where credit is due — Tom Nichols was tracking the same tactic I have for 20 years:
The gutting of “agree to disagree.”
I’ve written a lot on the sickening slop of applying “agree to disagree” without any regard for its original intent. But nothing tops Tom’s “conversational fire extinguisher” for a one-liner to call this bullshit what it is:
No matter what the subject, the argument always goes down the drain of an enraged ego and ends with minds unchanged, sometimes with professional relationships or even friendships damaged. Instead of arguing, experts today are supposed to accept such disagreements as, at worst, an honest difference of opinion.
We are supposed to “agree to disagree,” a phrase now used indiscriminately as little more than a conversational fire extinguisher. And if we insist that not everything is a matter of opinion, that some things are right and others are wrong . . . well, then we’re just being jerks, apparently.
Oh yeah, I know the routine — all too well!
As I said in my doc
And other writings long before that:
We have become a society of spin doctors who manipulate language anytime it suits our needs. Nowadays you can “agree to disagree” about subject matter that you know absolutely nothing about. Being smoothly smug is now considered civil — never mind the notion of genuine courtesy that comes with the willingness to be wrong. . . .
We begin and end our conversations believing that we’re right– shunning the discipline it takes to be correct. I think the following sheds light on how we created a culture that thrives on eradicating reason anytime we perceive a threat to our interests.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act V
A go-to tactic of the doubt-free is to make damn sure the debate never reaches the merits of the matter. I’ve seen highly intelligent people derail discussions by claiming that:
Everything’s just an opinion!
Nobody really believes that
It’s just a cop-out. And if you call ‘em on it, they fall back on Old Faithful — “agree to disagree.” How this hijacked-for-hackery catchphrase caught on over the years can be charted with the times:
Where things that once meant something, now mean nothing.
Clearly you think my line of thinking is incorrect and I think yours is wrong also so I would have to say this is one of the spots where agreeing to disagree is appropriate. I know you don’t believe in that but I’m sure it’s safe to say that you aren’t going to change your mind on . . . and neither am I, BUT THAT IS Ok!
— 2011 exchange with a friend
The minimum standard for a “line of thinking” — is to do some thinking. You cannot counter with nothing and say it’s something. AudioEnglish.org does a nice job of defining “line of thinking”:
The process of using your mind to consider something carefully
People love to plug “nobody’s perfect”:
And yet so many of ’em proudly refuse to be corrected on anything. The incorrigible in that camp act like they’re never wrong, never rude, never foolish, never over-the-top, never unreasonable, and never insulting. In the spirit of “only guilty man in Shawshank” — I’ve been all of those things at one time or another.
If you wanna gauge someone’s commitment to doing right by their fellow man — ask ’em how many times they didn’t.
This nation has no such notion
And once again, Tom can’t be topped on capturing this crap:
The United States is now a country obsessed with the worship of its own ignorance. . . . [W]e’re proud of not knowing things. Americans have reached a point where ignorance, especially of anything related to public policy, is an actual virtue. To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong about anything.
It is a new Declaration of Independence: no longer do we hold these truths to be self-evident, we hold all truths to be self-evident, even the ones that aren’t true. All things are knowable and every opinion on any subject is as good as any other.
We no longer have those principled and informed arguments. The foundational knowledge of the average American is now so low that it has crashed through the floor of “uninformed,” passed “misinformed” on the way down, and is now plummeting to “aggressively wrong.” People don’t just believe dumb things; they actively resist further learning rather than let go of those beliefs.
I was not alive in the Middle Ages, so I cannot say it is unprecedented, but within my living memory I’ve never seen anything like it.
— The Death of Expertise
And what’ve you’ve seen pales in comparison to what I’ve seen. I gave Tom his due. Now it’s time to explain the problem he miserably fails to see in his success (along with everyone else):
@Rare_Thoughts — Indeed . . .
My idea is simple:
Cutting through our Crap is King culture to get you to see it — is not.
Where infantile insults are celebrated
The doubt-free who don’t do their homework are the experts.
Those who belittle and outright reject correction — are the righteous and wise. The ones with courage to admit when they’re wrong — are the weak. Tireless dedication is mercilessly mocked — while intellectual laziness is esteemed. Original thinking and uniqueness are bashed — while conforming to the trite is trumpeted. Depth is discarded with disdain — while shallowness is embraced with love.
The honest & sincere are shunned — while manipulators & liars are welcomed with open arms.
This is my story — and if you read it in full, you’ll find it’s part of your story too. You’ve all dealt with the same behavior I have — the difference is that I get it from every direction:
Speaking of believing
Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it.
New formats for funneling information that caters to your cravings is not what I’d call enlightened. And those who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors before — think they’re wide awake now? The Twitter bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.”
It would never occur to him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101.
That you don’t understand how you’re all being played is bad enough, but that you make it nearly impossible to explain it to you reflects how new media has hardened you even more than legacy did. None of these boxes of beliefs are entirely wrong, but bonding within them makes you think you’re entirely right (on everything).
In this world — the rush is everything:
- The rush to respond
- The rush you get from responding
- The rush to roll out the next issue of concern
- Repeat and never reflect
You’d rather do a million things that won’t matter than one that would. You’d read 10,000 Tweets before you’d read 10 pages (never mind that the substance of those pages could solve some of the problems prompting that never-ending stream of concern). And no matter how much you flood the internet, it’ll never be enough:
As you bask in that collective feeling of going somewhere — never pausing for even a moment to notice you’re going nowhere.
At the helm of these interconnected echo chambers — are influencers who peddle repeatedly rehashed insight their followers praise like they split the atom. To be sure, some of it is insightful. But these “geniuses” are so full of wisdom that they’re oblivious to how they’re feeding the very problems they’re ostensibly trying to solve.
Purveyors of virtue are put on a pedestal for telling you what you wanna hear every goddamn day. They haven’t accomplished anything with their aimless arguments. But who cares about the efficacy of your efforts when failure is a pretty profitable enterprise these days.
If you think you’re making progress because of ever-increasing attention to your concerns, I suggest you reconsider.
One Voice Became Two 