This post is essentially saying don't even try to comment in an intelligent formal tone, citing sources, etc, on things you don't have a credential for. A surprisingly large number of fields are just applied statistics/probability with some minor domain knowledge tossed in. So people who are familiar with statistical methods can comment on things like this very fast. Further, that guy was explicitly citing people from the field to make his argument, not making some outlandish claim without backing it up.
In this post there is literally nothing about the actual content of what the other person was saying. There is nothing here about what citations they maybe were using incorrectly or misunderstanding.
There is nothing here saying what statistical tools they might have been accidentally abusing. There is nothing here! I'll speak for myself and say I'll judge ideas on their own merits not some empty credentialist garbage.
Thank you for posting this, I often have a bunch of scambled thoughts for outlines of posts or notes that I'd taking each week that never end up being fleshd out into longer posts no matter what I do. Maybe I should start doing more like this and just clean them up and post them as they currently exist.
This was a huge factor in my hosting a blog on my github.io page. There afaik is no available analytics on such sites available, and I didn't add any into the site. I have no clue how popular my blogposts are or if they have ever even been seen. They remain in a kind of superposition where I have no idea if anyone is reading some more than others or not. This causes me to put the same amount of effort and thought toward writing all of them regardless of topic. Furthermore, it means that I don't get uhh 'online stage fright'. I can assume that literally nobody is reading my blog or knows about it, which gives me a sense of ease I can trick myself into that allows me to write however I want.
In this post there is literally nothing about the actual content of what the other person was saying. There is nothing here about what citations they maybe were using incorrectly or misunderstanding.
There is nothing here saying what statistical tools they might have been accidentally abusing. There is nothing here! I'll speak for myself and say I'll judge ideas on their own merits not some empty credentialist garbage.