>Nevertheless, this is not the stuff that helps create the
>kind of deeper - vulnerable - connections that are stressed
>in the article.
No probably not. That would be really surprising also. I can really imagine this guy who wrote it, an ancient American business man - he's surely not into that kind of stuff. Anyways, it's a start ;)
> but the article is full of technical terms that you really don't want to know
The article looks a lot like word salad... too many specific technical terms for the average person to manage, yet lacking in the specifics that would be needed by someone capable of understanding their theory.
If it's written for their audience, then the only audience they seem to be targeting is average people who won't understand their assertions may be a load of crap.
Or is there someone here with a deep understanding of these topics that would care to chime in?
> ... I should try it myself. But I was hoping to maybe get some insights from somebody in the field.
Yes, of course. Please don't mistake my enthusiasm for some imperative or criticism. I was just taking the opportunity to make a point in HN generally. I look up the existing literature all the time. What a waste of all that effort otherwise!
I'm not sure how I can respond to that, other than pointing you to the Intro section (it's only a single, short paragraph). It seems clear to me that this is what the article is supposed to be about.
I liked the article because it gave a general idea on how hard it is to translate very old religious texts. I don't think it's trying to write a theological analysis, just giving a basic understanding of the subject.
For those who are more interested in the topic, they can do more research themselves, like checking out the book the economist is covering in the article.
>And information not captured in a verifiable primary source will never make it in
In theory. In general? I was just looking at an article where I have a lot of personal knowledge.
Is mostly True, as far as much of my first-hand knowledge can tell. And leave aside a couple of the random personal insertions that are definitely True if outside of all proportion to the rest of the article.
But there's one section in particular that goes into even more detail than I knew even as someone fairly in the depths of this particular thing. (But it's very plausible and consistent with what I do know.) It's certainly not something that's ever been written about publicly AFAIK and the actual references in the article are minimal.
Which comes back to that notability/verifiability/etc. are nice theories--and may even make sense in the abstract--but there's a huge amount of inconsistency depending upon whether someone has taken notice of an article or not. (And, in at least some cases, I'm often happy with people not looking too hard.)
> I read through the full article and the cognitive leaps the author makes are too big for me to follow.
Very typical of the author. Except few valuable ideas presented years ago, I haven't read or heard anything worthwhile. Mostly unsubstantiated speculation and “I've seen the big picture” type of ramblings.
All my comment implies is that I wish to read such deep analysis, and unfortunately the article didn't provide one. I'm hoping other people can reply with links to much better literature on the topic of consolidation versus seperation in business and politics.
> Maybe wait for the full paper and criticize the methodology if it appears flawed.
Eh, if the authors and their university are going to promote this in the media--and, make no mistake, this has been promoted heavily in order for it to reach the NYTimes--then I think it's fair game. You don't get to publicize your claims on the national stage and then avoid criticism until after your paper is published and the reader has forgotten everything (except the vague impression that meditation is backed by science).
> But a Tuesday New York Times article on the subject contained a fascinating nugget midway through, which could be described as a buried lede (journalese for putting the most explosive part of a story in the middle of the piece).
I’m going to come down on the opposite side and say that a garbage journal that nobody reads publishing garbage research for money isn’t news. Though it is certainly a good example of why you shouldn’t believe something just because it is published.
> But this field is different, there is lots of sound research.
Come on man: pick one. I read the article as you did, and it seems like a big pile of moosh, just as most things in psychology that don't involve large sums of money. If you know something about it: share why I should trust this shit other than "trust me, the non expert." If not; not saying anything is an option.
> Even before reporting really started circling the drain I always noted how wrong the news got technology stories, and I wondered if all the other topics were just as off.
>kind of deeper - vulnerable - connections that are stressed
>in the article.
No probably not. That would be really surprising also. I can really imagine this guy who wrote it, an ancient American business man - he's surely not into that kind of stuff. Anyways, it's a start ;)
reply