They claim that you shouldn’t trust anything you see or read, and you shouldn’t believe anything you hear. And it only makes sense to rely on subject-matter specialists to give you the real scoop. But how can we distinguish between experts and posers, or BS’ers? Online, forums—almost like conversations—are often used by users. Ah, but if we claim that you shouldn’t accept everything you hear and that online forums resemble chats in coffee shops, then one may surmise that Listando expert they are a very lousy source of knowledge. In a recent online discussion about how to find experts, one person who called themselves an expert said the following in response to your many long posts:
If I am not compensated, I cannot think.
We were all shocked by how false it appeared, but this was the revelation of his true nature and ruthless honesty. He had no reason to care, and by relying on his qualifications, he wasted everyone’s time. Of course, one must inquire:
Are you saying that ideas you share for free aren’t as good as those for which you get paid?
How does it function?
How would one defend that?
I would have to agree in this instance if he is suggesting that the material he publishes for free in the form of articles or forum postings is inferior to his genuine ability. But if the experts in online writing are taking this sort of conduct into account, then maybe part of being an expert—or rather, part of the definition of expert—is having to include the following:
Experts could be reluctant to participate in internet forums or write articles about them.
Naturally, this controversy has been raised before, but when we investigated the “psychotherapist” forum user who made these claims, we got to see it in action. We may come across specialists in publications, but shouldn’t we admit that utilising forum posts would be challenging because of manipulation, Machiavellian politics, and/or the amount of BS?
Do we all agree that finding experts in forums is far more challenging than finding them in articles? If so, this is problematic since there are millions of forums and hundreds of millions of blogs, but only 50,000 article authors on this site have written more than half a million articles. The need for finding reliable writing from professionals or authorities cannot be overstated.
The “coffee shop” example is appropriate, but if the conversations there resemble those in internet forum threads, may we conclude that most online information is fake? If so, what value does it have given that, even if they were from an expert, they would still simply be expert BS? Do you want to waste your precious time thinking about this kind of thread? If so, why? If not, would it be prudent to move your displacement?
Online readers and internet users need higher standards of ethics. This is a challenge when defining our definition’s expert perimeters. Perhaps the contrary should be done; we should define “BS” in order to first get rid of the BS, after which the majority of the truth will remain. The truth, which was written by an authority, may then be inferred from it. There is no need for authorization to start the project since unquestionably any online user on earth could use a programme like “BS Filter,” not only those who browse the internet here. In fact, hasn’t it already begun? Consider it.