posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 10:04 AM
Alex does two things.
The first thing he does is he points you to references, articles, clips, he is like a google search term, or a friend who knows your taste in music.
In my experience, every article or reference that he says says so-and-so pretty much does say so-and-so, any ambiguity is present in the original
material and I have not seen him misread or misrepresent a source. So as a repeater, his score is good, pretty unequivocally.
His other function, which I would call determining weight of emphasis, is much more artistic, harder to quantify his worth at...He can report a list
of accurately-quoted sources, all of which are "true", true enough, good everyday data points which taken together seem to prove such-and-such
...but there may be (probably are) somewhere some other citations, equally true-enough everyday data points, that might seem to prove
anti-(such-and-such)...In other words, every individual thing Alex references may be true-enough and accurately-quoted...But if we knew everything
about whatever topic Alex is on about, if we had a God's-eye-view or if we were 20 years in the future and knew how things all turned out, would the
particular true-enough things that Alex mentions be the most necessary and informative things that he could have picked?...Well probably
not...Alex is not God, doesn't know everything, and does not come from the future...I find it easy to forgive him for that...Plus the easiest way to
sort through a whole vast pile of info is to take a strong point-of-view/bias and sort everything into pro- and con- your hypothesis...That is what
Alex is doing, and there is nothing wrong with that, he is not lying or crazy, and when he gets stuff wrong it is because he gets stuck harping on the
wrong (factually-correct but ultimately irrelevant-or-insignificant) data points.
So if we had to rate Alex on this task, how well does he pick which true-enough reference-items to emphasize...he is not as good at this as he is at
being a repeater (but it's a harder task), maybe he's half-right, right now I don't think we know enough to evaluate the predictive value of his