NYT on the rise of climbing

I guess what I’d like to know @Jake Jones is which news outlet do you read/listen to that is un-biased? I prefer that the Times and even the NPR shows I listen too, admit their bias so that I know where they’re coming from. Also just to be perfectly honest, I don’t subscribe to any news outlet. I just use google news and run out of free articles from pretty much all sources each month. I even read Fox News sometimes and I find it scary how good they are at making it appear to their consumer that they are unbiased reporting. 

Hobo Greg wrote:

Hiking: lower body.

Climbing: upper body, mind.

What else is there?

but but but Triceps!!!!

Pierre Proulx wrote:

but but but Triceps!!!!

Actually, with hiking poles and a heavy pack my triceps are often sore, especially if the decent was steep.

I may have to go with Hobo Greg on this one. Even the delts would get a good work-out if you're belaying from the top alot with big ropes and tight plaquettes. Plus the pecs contract alot when pulling if the elbows are at all towards midline.

umm...excuse me...I need to grab some fresh air. It suddenly got hot in here...

Hobo Greg wrote:

Yeah, exactly, I forgot to follow my own advice and look what happened? Thanks for proving my point for me.

Hmmm. what happened? You have only been climbing for a short period, you pushed it and you got tweaked and got a repetitive use injury......because the act of climbing is pretty specific, repetitive, and not that great for you in many ways, physically speaking.

I guess that proved your point?  

Bagel Sendwich wrote:

Actually, with hiking poles and a heavy pack my triceps are often sore, especially if the decent was steep.

Thats not climbing....thats hiking.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you but I'm pretty sure the article was aimed at the act of climbing and likely more specifically in the gym

.....And Hobo Greg, what the hell are you doing on here?!? You, of all of us, have the least reasons to be squandering your time on here.

"Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia."

-Crichton

Fan Zhang wrote: Clearly this article's target audience has very little overlap with MP aficionados ... 

I love rappelling indoors

Brian Abram wrote: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/08/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/

"Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia."

-Crichton

quoted for truth

Brian Abram wrote: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/08/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/

"Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia."

-Crichton

To wade into this argument...

Or you read an article about a field you have been socialized into - mainly through understanding of jargon and language-games involved in that topic, signaling your supposedly deserved admittance into the tribe - and thus assume (correctly or incorrectly) that you have some level of expertise. A journalist goes and writes about your topic, often using layman's terms to describe concepts that have been layered in jargon that has been made unintelligible to the general public (sometimes because that jargon makes discussion more efficient or precise for experts, but also because it gives gatekeepers the ability to exclude those who have not been properly indoctrinated into their assumptions and worldview). You see their lack of jargon, and use it to pounce on the fact that they are outside of the tribe (e.g. rappelling instead of lowering), and thus unworthy of holding an opinion or viewpoint. You then refuse to engage in their conceptual argument, especially if it shows signs of challenging your own assumptions. This all further insulates your field (and worldview) from criticism, and helps to maintain the tight, insular circle of those considered worthy to have opinions on a topic.

Tyler Smith wrote:

To wade into this argument...

Or you read an article about a field you have been socialized into - mainly through understanding of jargon and language-games involved in that topic, signaling your supposedly deserved admittance into the tribe - and thus assume (correctly or incorrectly) that you have some level of expertise. A journalist goes and writes about your topic, often using layman's terms to describe concepts that have been layered in jargon that has been made unintelligible to the general public (sometimes because that jargon makes discussion more efficient or precise for experts, but also because it gives gatekeepers the ability to exclude those who have not been properly indoctrinated into their assumptions and worldview). You see their lack of jargon, and use it to pounce on the fact that they are outside of the tribe (e.g. rappelling instead of lowering), and thus unworthy of holding an opinion or viewpoint. You then refuse to engage in their conceptual argument, especially if it shows signs of challenging your own assumptions. This all further insulates your field (and worldview) from criticism, and helps to maintain the tight, insular circle of those considered worthy to have opinions on a topic.

I get what you are saying, but also think one should refrain from taking stances or opinions on things they know very little about. Not all opinions are equally valid. And "Jargon" is just a nescessary feature of discussing almost anything with precision, beyond a novice level. Though some do use it to exclude others.

Miscommunication about rappelling vs lowering could kill someone.

Big B wrote:

quoted for truth

While I’ve enjoyed many of Crighton’s books, he was a climate change denying kook, in the end.

Eric wrote: Brian, while GMA cannot be credibly disputed, didn't you read Mobes' post?  NYT has the elite journalists!  That's as far as you need to be able to think.

Are you disputing that the NYT does not have the cream of the journalist crop or just trying to mimic late night talk radio? 

I'm certainly not much of a fan of most news these days but as far as the best journalists go I'd bet my life savings that none of them write for FOX or the NYT style section.