Date: 10/10/19 6:32 am From: larspernorgren <larspernorgren...> Subject: [obol] Good and ?
The point Mike Patterson makes is pretty important. I knew all along what Brodie meant. But not everyone does. "Good" is used as a descriptor in the interest of brevity. It requires not simply a paraphrase but a number of sentences to adequately describe the concept. I have had an aversion to dichotomy for some time, but it seems to be widespread in cultures, perhaps innately human? Good tends to be automatically juxtaposed to bad, or better yet"evil". An intimidating atmosphere can inadvertently be created. We are lucky we learn our first language when self-awareness is not yet well developed, or some of us might never try. It can be embarrassing to perform poorly. I had a conversation this year with a graduate student writing a thesis in ornithology. She had negative experiences with people doubting her field ID skills, and cited a colleaugue having similar experiences. In one case the woman had completed a Bachelor's of Science and was working on a national wildlife refuge. The eBird reviewer doubted that she was really seeing Short-eared Owls. I can't offer a simple solution to a pervasive problem whose roots are cultural/psychological. But it strikes me that these algorithms that evaluate observers' lD skills are probably part of the solution. For starters, l'd like to assume the robotic evaluation is gender neutral. Practice makes perfect(and l use "perfect" imprecisely, 95% is good enough for me). It's good to reward folks for their effort. I'm afraid of sounding banal, but it's very desirable to promote a culture that's supportive. The bizarre and contradictory have disproportionate prominence on this list, and online fora in general. To the vast silent majority out there, keep up the good work.Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone