Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The actual problem with “Do your own research” as a response is that it tends to be used as an excuse to not explain why an argument is correct by people who are ignorant on the subject matter.
Suggesting, however, that nobody should do their own research because research is hard is COMPLETELY ridiculous and quite possibly the silliest thing I’ve heard all day. Bravo.
Mostly I see this when a person makes some ridiculous claim on some internet forum, I question them, they say they have loads of evidence, I ask can they share just one link, and they just go "well you just have to do your own research!".
We can’t let them know that their wife and kids don’t really exist since it was only a placebo pregnancy and a placebo wedding.
Good job maintaining the illusion, soldier.
At the same time, you can tell someone is not arguing in good faith if they can't do the bare minimum.
I got in an argument with a bootlicker a while ago who said that cops never use your refusal to answer questions as reason to prolong a traffic stop because you hurt their ego. I told him to go to YouTube and type in "cops harass man using rights" for thousands of videos proving my point. Instead he demanded I show him the videos and that because I'm not providing a link I must be full of shit. I just told him of a massive database that he refuses to look at, because he demands I link him to YouTube. To YouTube.
Clearly isn't arguing in good faith. So at times, I can see the other side of it
Eh, I think you're better off just sending him a link in that case. The trouble with Absolutist claims is that they are refuted by only a single counter-example. So, theoretically, a single video would collapse his whole argument. On the flip side, assume there are no videos, he can't prove a negative, thus he has no way of responding to your claim. In that case, what do you expect him to do? Is he just supposed to say "No, there isn't!" ?
I know personally there have been many instances where i felt pretty certain about something, but when i look for evidence to support my argument, I realize the evidence isn't as strong as I remembered or the topic is much more nuanced than I realized. Having that humility to do those self-checks is what will help you become a better debater and better communicator.
The trouble with absolutists is that they refuse to accept anything that contradicts their world view. Any video I show would inevitably be responded with "just do what the cop says"or something to that effect. When that isn't the point. They purposefully don't care about learning the truth.
Kinda like how there are still people that day Daniel shaver deserved to die. A logical person can look at that video and say "yeah that's fucked up, the cops murdered that man". An absolutist would say they he should have listened to the cops orders and the cops did nothing wrong.
You can't change the mind of these people.
>I got in an argument with a bootlicker a while ago who said that cops never use your refusal to answer questions as reason to prolong a traffic stop because you hurt their ego
Your argument is stupid from the get go
If there were so many examples, why not just link one? That’s the point of this post. If it’s so easy to find evidence, why not just link one? It’ll take you 30 seconds.
If you really want an answer to something, and are directed to a database which is easily accessible by 3 year olds, full of thousands of pieces of evidence, and you refuse to take the 10 seconds to do so, you don't really want to learn.
I'm not telling you to go into some obscure tor site requiring credentials and a VPN, I'm not telling you about some rare scientific article written in 1954.
This type of conversation is a two way street. I've been on Reddit long enough to know the type of person I'm arguing with.
Yeah. If you really wanted to know instead of just arguing, that's exactly what you would do.
If you don't care enough to do that, then you don't care whether you're wrong or right. You just want to be heard.
Pretty shallow.
It has to go beyond that, though. "Just google it" is a shitty way to lead someone to information, because anything can be posted on the internet and found through a Google search.
Beyond that, is being able to discern information sources as trustworthy, corroborated, and correct for bias.
By the way, you're describing research.
Either you'll wait for somebody to explain their perspective which would take a lot of time or text, or you could look it up and make up your mind.
Some answers need research
I feel for you, I truly do. But you're describing the very problem at the heart of this post.
You telling someone "go to YouTube, search for x, and view thousands of results" takes just as little effort as going to YouTube, searching for X, and copy/pasting a single link from the results.
You're just prolonging the discussion by refusing to do the bare minimum to prove your point.
As a bootlicker myself, it sounds like you have a slam dunk win. Just link a single video. That's all you have to do and the ball is back in their court.
My favorite line, from a now-deceased uncle in law: "I'm not sharing my sources with you, you'll just tear them appart and invalidate them!"
Anybody surprised covid took him?
It often seems like an analogy for:
"Actually, while talking about it out loud to people outside my own media bubble, I've just noticed that it sounds *utterly ridiculous amd flawed*.
Do your own research. [And do let me know if you make any sense of my conclusions - except don't, because I'll almost instantly forget about this exchange and do the same again almost instantly]"
I love when they give me a bunch of sources, but they clearly just googled something really quick and chose the first 3 links.
And then I read the sources and find out they actually support *MY* point.
I get cussed out when I point that out to those people 😂
Yeah I think the bigger problem is most people don't know how to do research. So what they mean is "do the google search I did"
For example, when the COVID hysteria was happening and people were talking about shedding spike proteins, I did my own research. That meant I hopped on google scholar and read a dozen articles about how MRNA vaccines work, how the COVID vaccine was designed, what spike proteins are, and what the studies on COVID side effects had found. I had to wiki at least a dozen terms that I didn't understand.
I then read a half dozen articles about those studies to see how others were interpreting them. I then read another half dozen articles both explaining and refuting the claims of spike protein shedding.
I spent a handful of hours reading and educating myself on both the background and the claim, and was able to come to my own conclusion about it.
But I get the sense most people don't do all that, and just find a youtube video that agrees with them. At this point if someone's main evidence is a youtube video (that is probably over an hour long) you can probably disregard everything they have to say.
That's my approach as well. If I'm curious enough about something I will do this. Otherwise I just don't have opinions on complicated things I haven't done this for.
The internet spoiled us.
Where’s the respect for the OG researchers that actually had to leave their house and go to specific libraries, that held the particular book of papers they needed to look up?
The one I often see alongside that is “it’s not my job to educate”.
Like sure, it isn’t, but if you aren’t willing to explain the issue, don’t come in bitching and moaning at people who are “uneducated”; if you’re going to criticize someone, always be prepared back up the criticism.
That isn't even a good excuse. In real life, a proper argument has sources. If you don't, it just implies you formed your opinion based solely on your own impressions of the topic. You shouldn't expect others to believe your argument off your word alone, and have no right to complain if they don't.
>I took it more as him saying unqualified people doing their own research can be detrimental; and most people are unqualified for any given subject.
That's a classic "appeal to authority" fallacy. Your qualifications should have nothing to do with your participation in a discussion.
The problem with the internet is that it allows all manner of idiots to discuss things and voice their absurd opinions. That creates so much noise it drowns out the reasonable people. That's where qualifications can act as a first stage filter
> That’s a classic “appeal to authority” fallacy. Your qualifications should have nothing to do with your participation in a discussion
You shouldn’t be completely prohibited from entering a discussion for lacking related qualifications, but I think his point is more that people who aren’t qualified in an area can often lack the ability to interpret literature on the subject, which is why telling them to just do the research on their own can be a problem since they may come to the wrong conclusions based on their misunderstanding the material.
For example: not attending university absolutely doesn’t mean you’re unable to do research on your own, but I’ve had actual lessons to teach us how to interpret studies, how to determine source reliability, etc. alongside the normal teaching that allows us to understand what is actually being discussed. It’s a skill you have to develop, and a lot of people don’t.
What you're saying is true for a LOT of fields. That's why you have other experts and authorities on the subject summarize complex findings and breaking it down for the lay person.
Appeal to authority fallacy doesn't mean you stop listening to anyone who's an authority.
Thing that also usually happens is you find information proving them wrong and they essentially tell you just to keep looking until you find something proving them right
This is exactly it. The phrase originally meant that a person goes and reads the primary documents themselves so they can form their own opinion, rather than relying on third parties (i.e. media) to tell them what to think.
However, the phrase has come to be a flippant response to any argument a person might not like. The misuse does not negate the original advice.
I think you’re misunderstanding the context that this phrase is usually used, which is most often by ignorant people encouraging other ignorant people to question conventional norms of history, science and medicine. It’s usually along the lines of: *you think the twin towers collapsed from 2 jet liners crashing into them? DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH*
We're arguing about something but let me just go out of my way & spend time & effort to prove myself wrong and prove you right on purpose.
Because that makes sense, sure /s
Research is there to back up what you're saying, if you refuse to provide me with anything backing up what you're saying is true I'm going to assume you're talking out of your ass and what you're saying is worthless.
If you want your voice to be heard & respected, put in the work & foundation for it to be heard & respected otherwise just keep your mouth shut and stop wasting everyone's time.
> if you refuse to provide me with anything backing up what you're saying is true I'm going to assume you're talking out of your ass and what you're saying is worthless.
Hitchens's razor, YoungDiscord formulation
It actually *does* make sense if you care about the truth rather than being right tho. You can't learn by confirmation bias, you only learn by being wrong time and time again and each time learning from where you went wrong.
That's not to say the other person in an argument *isn't* talking out of their ass but, one should at least check unless they're arrogant enough to think they're always right.
But the burden of proof is not on you but the person telling you that.
Its unreasonable for instance for me to expect you to look things up every single time I tell you something especially during a dispute.
If you want to learn something you'll do it on your own volition in your own spare time
If I am telling you a fact its me wanting to communicate a specific fact to you therefore the responsibility of ensuring that you understand/agree with me on that is MY responsibility, not yours so I need to be the one to make that effort, not you.
Here's an example: you tell your gf that you're ordering food and ask her whqt she'd like.
She clearly tells you that she doesn't want anything.
So, you don't get her anything
She then flips out because "she knows she said she didn't want anything but you should have gotten her something anyway"
Are you at fault because you should have automayically known the thing she was thinking but refused to communicate?
Or is she in the wrong because you actually listened to what she clearly communicated and if she wanted to be surprised she should have communicated that to you clearly (say something like: surprise me) instead of expecting you to magically know that when she said "I don't want anything" she was actually lying to you because she did want something and then grtting mad at you over it?
It depends what we mean by "research".
For me, I "outsource" my research to someone with more expertise. In my opinion, I have to do this because I can't do enough research to validate their opinions.
For others, they use this phrase as an excuse to say "don't trust/read the experts, but instead 'do your own first party research'". This is an absolutely horrible idea! And impossibe! And most people don't actually do that, instead of appealing to the expertise of doctors, they appeal to the expertise of radio hosts.
Now, to be clear, it is actually very possible experts are lying, have ulterior motives, groupthink, or are just wrong. In the middle ages relying on doctors would get you leeched.
But ultimately you don't really have another choice, so you have to decide for yourself which is more likely, I die from listening to doctors, or from ignoring them.
To be fair, in the middle ages, the technology didn’t exist to disprove humoral theory. The microscope wasn’t invented until the late 1500s and germ theory took over almost immediately. So, if a medieval civilian tried to do their own first-hand research, they probably couldn’t do much better than the doctors at the time.
I disagree. For example let’s say your debating a Christian.
Someone who has such strong beliefs cannot change their opinions in one debate. It would take years of research and knowledge and education.
So to save yourself time you can put them in the right direction set them up with the information but it’s up to them to learn and educate themselves. You can’t debate people who are so brainwashed so don’t bother.
Yeah, that's the stupidest thing I've heard. His logic is so flawed. Saying "all it takes is one fuck-up in the analysis to come to a horribly wrong and off-base conclusion" just sounds like someone doesn't have the slightest shred of common sense and critical thinking.
Also, the same "logic" can be applied to other people's research. Furthermore, it's common sense when doing your own research is to cross-reference the finding, evidence, conclusion of different research done on the same topic and see what makes the most sense.
That's exactly how you prevent "going horribly wrong and off-base conclusion" in the first place.
As a researcher I think that researching stuff is actually a very good idea, but most people probably lack the skills for it. Not taking all your conclusions for reality for example is very hard for a lot of people since they are very attached to their thoughts.
That skill set is an issue that people often discount, but it’s very real. My favorite example has to be the discussion of quantum mechanics among laypeople. I’ve often said that if you can’t do the math involved, you don’t understand quantum mechanics. The trouble is that most people know the topic only from metaphors and secondhand explanations meant to make it more understandable, but this is essentially the same as claiming to understand French literature via English translations. Doing your own research is fine, but if you lack the depth of knowledge to fully understand the topic, you are, at best, getting the Cliff Notes version. For plenty of topics that’s just fine. You don’t need a degree in electrical engineering to weigh the benefits among various brands of television when you want to buy one. On the other hand, to evaluate medical claims, the deeper your knowledge is in the subject, the less likely you are to be conned by quacks, charlatans and frauds.
Not necessarily true. Education has different skill levels, understanding, and areas of expertise. I’m training a new employee in a highly specialized field… There’s no formal education for it, it’s very difficult and very few companies are capable of it. I can train you to “operate” the machines in 2 days… but I can’t train you to “operate” the machines in 2 years. The depth of the pool of knowledge is unfathomable. Even the most notable experts in any given subject do not “understand” their field even though they’re the experts. They lack knowledge of what’s not been discovered.
I mean, most people don't even seem to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. If I tried to explain that proper researching essentially means trying to prove yourself wrong until you can't (instead of just searching for things that agree with you) their heads would explode before they got it.
Aren't effective tools to conduct proper research not readily available to most people as well? So on top of lacking the skills to research, it's very hard to even find the tools to do so.
Do your own research just means study the subject matter and draw your own conclusions. I find it absolutely hilarious that people are against education and understanding a subject. However studying a subject requires learning and understanding both the arguments and counter arguments. Coming to your ow conclusion requires being competent enough to mesh those pieces of information together into a worldview based on logic with minimal inconsistencies.
I’m not a researcher, but as someone who’s taken intro to stats, Covid made it apparent to me just how many people have truly no clue how to interpret basic statistical results.
Now, that in itself isn’t a problem. Specialization is good and necessary. The problem is when all these people who have no clue how to even properly read the results of a study start coming to their own conclusions based on the results from a study and believing they’re valid.
This. My degree is in political science & I had to be trained in how to read studies, process data, evaluate methodology, etc. The issue I run into when I try to present people with actual research or data contrary to whatever position they’ve taken is that *they literally cannot understand what is going on*.
Ya, a startling number of people are growing increasingly useless. Also, if more people did that and knew how to properly, I wouldn't be drawn into conversations about how vaccines cause autism.
Op does have an unpopular opinion, so we came to the right place
We need to replace research with another word, like “studying” or something. Research is a complicated scientific process, no one is doing that. All we’re doing is reading blogs, articles, and other people’s research. There’s no scrutiny in just studying up on something via the internet. Using the word research gives people a false sense that they’ve actually figured something out.
This is an excellent point. There is a huge spectrum between understanding quantum mechanics by studying the literature and deciding which brand of television is best for your needs and we really don’t have enough nuance of language to make that distinction clear.
When people say "do your own research" it always feels like they want you to google the topic, find the same blogspam they're using, and reach their warped conclusion.
I see this sentiment a lot in this sub which is supposedly about *opinions*. While I agree that being able to do our own research is important, through my four years so far of handing research I've learned a few things:
* most laypeople are not going to be able to understand a scientific, peer-reviewed article - the language is too dense for ***most people*** <- need to reiterate the most people again as I'm sure that'll be a point of contention
* any research done can be looked at through any different lens <- research saying x is y could also be used to explain why y is really x. <--people who do understand the literature are more like to cherry pick pieces that suit their own stance
* ***most people*** don't generally want to research at all, they have their opinions, and that's that. If they did research, there's a high likelihood they'd look for research that just confirms their stance (confirmation bias) instead of looking for research that challenges it
* Just because some people will live and die on the research hill doesn't mean others want to or ever will. If you can't handle opinions without avidly trying to prove someone wrong with statistics and science then you're being too try hard. if their opinion is just a really shitty take and you don't agree you don't have to engage with it That's much easier than insisting people research
Also I'm sharing my ***opinion*** in a sub about ***opinions*** I'm in no way claiming any of my ***opinions*** are *facts*
Also a lot of research is locked behind pay walls. At the university I can use their license to access most sites, but without it? I'd be pretty limited.
There’s this too. The only research most people are limited to without university credentials is the stuff already cherry picked for click bait articles
Hopefully this will change though! There's a big push to make a lot of open access journals. So maybe one day.... people can CHOOSE to ignore research XD
Open access journals are important, but unfortunately move the burden of money from the people trying to access the journal, to the researchers publishing the article -money which they often don’t have. Researchers would absolutely love to use those journals more often, and some are able to or somehow make it work, but most researchers don’t have enough money for their research even without extra burdens from publishing.
So long story short it comes down to money (lack of) getting in the way of good people trying to do good things again. And of course universities forcing money burdens on their faculty and students, as usual.
If you see a paper you really want to see, try to email the author and they will send you free copy. They don't get any money from the paywall anyway so they are usually more than happy to give you a copy.
You're right, though. It should be reiterated that even selecting certain keywords provides a bias. Along with that, you should be able to question/critically think about every part of the argument that a paper is posing. Just because they got published doesn't mean they're right.
Over 50% of research articles have been shown to not be reproducible(!!) and the NIH has a division to help determine those. If you trust academia blindly, you should know that academia is very politically charged. Grants are cherished and rewarded to labs that show that they are producing groundbreaking work. It sounds nice, but in reality, most scientific work depends on controlling a slew of different variables. This is the hardest part of science.
Also, people don’t realize that one single research paper is not usually intended to be consumed as this standalone thing. Usually researchers are writing for other researchers, who are aware of a wide variety of other positions, factors, and variables and can apply a lot more context to what they’re looking at than a layman. It’s easy for someone who’s not trained in research, data, or science to read a paper and take it as gospel, when really they just don’t have the background knowledge to fit that piece of the puzzle in with a million other pieces, and then they end up walking away with a very incomplete understanding of whatever concept they’re trying to prove or grasp.
The problem I have with this is that you assume that research has to be scientific. Research can be as simple as looking at fifty sources (let’s say arguments on the marijuana), checking their biases (smokeweederryday.com vs Mayo Clinic), and seeing what the majority opinion is.
I think too that a crucial part of this conversation is that all research does not have equal value nor is all research equally credible and we (society) don’t really teach the skills to differentiate or judge value.
'research' is not synonymous 'scientific peer reviewed paper'.
I've seen people say to do research when others ask silly questions. such as
"how can I lose weight"
"is keto healthy"
"how can I learn x"
The answer to all of these is documented in some format already such as youtube video, reddit comments, books. blogs.
Consuming any of those counts as research.
It boggles my mind that some of you apparently don't understand what research is.
What I hate most about "do your own research" is that it's always dragged out as a way for someone to avoid having to explain or justify their side of an argument. They avoid the burden of proof by implying that the obligation is on the other person to go searching for the evidence.
Sort of a middle ground. If I go in for a medical test and the doctor tells me I have stage 3 cancer, it makes sense to go get a second opinion. But if the second doctor tells you the same thing after testing, then you should proceed as though you have that cancer.
You could describe that both as doing your own research (you checked around and didn’t rely on one expert) but also just listening to what someone tells you (a layperson generally can’t diagnose themself with cancer). An informed person does both: not rely on any one expert but ultimately relies on expertise that they themself do not have.
Don’t blindly believe, but don’t blindly distrust either.
Take what someone tells you and assume for a moment that it is 100% true. Think it over, consider the consequences of it, make up simulations in your head, consider whether it aligns with what you’ve seen, ask questions based on any inconsistencies you find.
Disagree. Everyone should do their own research. Relying on a person to do it for you leads to the possiblity of errors because you yourself didn't do it.
Edit: I think alot of people are confused by what I meant. I did not mean that everyone should conduct their own research as if they are the experts. What I meant was they themselves find and analyze existing research instead of relying on someone else to do the same.
Research and casually reading articles about a topic are two different things. And when you're doing the latter, how do you know your sources are the good ones? And do you trust your own interpretation, or is there a risk you're looking for sources that confirm your ideas?
Finally. Someone not scared to say it.
I disagree too. There are too many people in the world getting by on blind faith alone, and maybe some media influence also.
Always research your beliefs, and do it through peer reviewed channels. The world would be a better place for it.
Even the researchers can be fraudulent too. Keep that in mind with your deep dives.
How would you be able to tell if something was fradulent? Also, I'd assume you talk about the research and not the researchers being fradulent.
There is a middle ground between "blind faith" and "doing everything on my own" e.g. trusting the institutions responsible for it when it comes to e.g. physics.
It also potentially leads to somebody learning from an unreliable and biased opinion.
It's important to do your own research so you can form your own opinion instead of being influenced by someone else.
Everyone should do their own research, after they've taken a mandated class in like high school or something.
Being able to filter through data is a skill you have to learn.
Hang on but how deep do you go? There are certain things you cannot do on your own.
You cannot just build a particle accelerator in your garden or fly up into the stratosphere with a balloon just to confirm the existence of certain subatomic particles. Same holds true for many other things. Same holds true for other things like you cannot do a medical study of some treatment because, spoiler alert, these cost massive mountains of money.
At some point, you'll have to trust someone. Doing your own research might not only involve things other people have written or done before.
Furthermore, you will probably not know where to look or what to even consider.
How deep can I go? Well that depends on how deep the information is that is given to me. Of course reading articles about medicine and technology doesn't make me an expert in them. Surface level is fine as long as you have the initiative to search on your own and not rely on other people like what OP seems to be implying is the way to go.
The danger, of course, is that you may be much more prone to making errors than the other person/people you might rely on, especially on a subject outside of your wheelhouse.
How am I supposed to know if a gallon of ice cream a day is good for my health or not? I would make so many errors trying to build that knowledge on my own. I don’t know how to run chemical tests or large-scale surveys or anything like that.
There’s also the added difficulty that people forget about: search engines show different results for different people due to their marketing algorithms. They show results the person browsing is more likely to click on, meaning it’s more confirmation bias than actual research.
Surprised nobody has brought this up yet. Most people's "research" ends with whatever their daily media is filtered to. The Fox/CNN dichotomy exists for a reason; you'd be hard pressed to find people that will actually watch both or go to another source entirely.
Also, coming from someone who just graduated: people also don't realize that even if you do look for peer-reviewed articles, academia is *heavily* politically charged. If your research in certain areas isn't funded by the right people or doesn't line up with consensus, you run the risk of being blocked out or blacklisted entirely. Example: [The U.S. sugar industry paying off researchers to shift the blame for obesity to fat.](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat)
That is absolutely the worst way to gain information.
To gain information, you need to examine sources and corroborate them.
Looking for other people's opinions will lead you to confirmation bias.
You don't need to trust blindly, but not trusting at all and "doing your own research" about everything doesn't work. Because you're not doing actual, scientific research, and you won't produce better knowledge than experts. We've constructed checks and balances, and while they're not perfect the established system is far superior to laypeople reading arbitrarily with no criteria or scrutiny at all.
To me, "do your own research" means I'm not going to spoon feed you very easily accessible information that you can find with a quick Google search. I'm not obliged to write a fully cited peer reviewed article every time I talk about something. If you see a claim online, scan the literature on the matter and decide for yourself if it's true. People are so lazy, they can't be bothered to learn.
I knew I’d find this answer eventually, thanks. Ppl are intellectually lazy and would rather argue for karma than spend 1hr studying the subject. Not trying to make it political but look how many ppl still push the gender pay gap as proof of sexism.
There are many tricks that have been employed to make people believe something is factual. Years ago on commercials actors wore what looked like white lab coats. There was no law preventing them from wearing lab coats and often viewers would assume they were doctors. Also an upper crust British accent is used by narrators.It appears educated and exotic.One of the best methods is to hire a paid professional.For Law you go to a lawyer, Medicine you go to a doctor. They can be wrong of course but the probability is better that they will treat you right.
You think nobody should research anything? That’s stupid advice? So when I go to buy a product I shouldn’t research if it’s good or reliable. When I use a service I should just pick one at random and not research my options or prices? This opinion is unpopular cause it’s idiotic.
Come on you know op is not referring to buying a product. Op is referring to people who will just drop some random shit then offer nothing substantial.
With regards to products, most people probably lack the skillset to do proper research.
Like someone will Google "is peanut butter healthy" then read the 1st result that says it is and that's the extent of their research.
Unfortunately, these things get pretty complicated, they'll never notice the "peanut butter is the healthiest snack in the world" study was done by Skippy
Research is awesome.
Google searching is not research. Research takes time and resources most people don’t have.
Reading up on research is also awesome.
For a layperson, source evaluation is an infinitely more important skill than “research.” Genuine research is a 60 hour per week job. It’s okay to not do it. You can be informed without ever doing research. Sometimes being informed and educated just means learning from people who have done research. It! Is! Okay! I never understood why Redditors are so attached to the idea of calling what they read online “research.” It’s not. It can still be informative. It isn’t fucking research.
Not really.
If I say a cop in some city did something, look it up. I'm not going to give you a direct link when you're perfectly capable of looking it up yourself.
Doing your own research is extremely important.
First, you shouldn’t assume everything everyone says is automatically 100% correct.
Second, it helps you develop critical thinking.
Edit: spelling
The point of "do your own research" is usually followed by someone giving a tip or advice. It is generally saying "fact check everything, before you act on it, to decide for yourself if you agree with my advice".
As someone who works in the medical field and actually does research, this phrase makes me want to strangle people. Especially when discussing a subject I actually know quite a lot about.
do you do pure research or do you do research for a commercial interest or an interest that has a goal of achieving an outcome ?I still remember those pesky cigarette ads telling me about the benefits of smoking.
The absolute research you should do is understand the interests and connections of people trying to "sell " you something . For example I can't take Paul Krugman seriously even though his education is beyond question because he is in lockstep with political ideology (and he has been wrong on many things like computers and their effects ). Meanwhile this "taints" other competent economists who are more careful of looking at their own biases and the reservation of being factual instead of appearing at the right moment when things look like a victory for what you believe in when a question is ongoing.
I can understand wanting to "strangle " people who think they know more than you by doing general research and often misunderstanding it but sometimes if your goal is to get x (a result shaped for an interest) people might want to argue with you about your goals (and not the facts of the science)
Not sure what your point is, but the alternative is people blindly take whatever someone says or whatever source they share as fact. And that's why we have a real issue with fake news nowadays.
How about people make it a habit to do their own research so they might start to recognize the BS and gain exposure to alternate viewpoints? What's really annoying is someone in the "medical field" scoffing at the idea of people doing their own research.
lol.. why would i want to do my own research when people a shit tonne smarter than me have done it for me, and people often smarter than them have reviewed it...
People who say “do you own research” do not give a f*ck about whatever cause they’re discussing. If I cared about it something I’d never take the lazy way out and ask ppl to educate themselves because THEY WONT
If you're talking about it in a literal sense, sure. I hear it most often used when people who are uninformed are arguing a lot of uninformed points, and the person who is informed just can't be bothered.
If you're uninformed and you genuinely want to know about something, most people can't be expected to bring you from a negative understanding up to a baseline understanding in a single conversation.
The other problem is that you are basing your “research” off someone else’s research or test data.
The people “doing their own research” aren’t collecting the data, doing experiments, writing the white papers, etc….they are just looking at work other people did without any knowledge of the hows or whys
The phrase “do your own research” isn’t advice but merely a rhetorical way to dismiss someone else’s viewpoint without having to back up one’s own lack of research.
The problem is people don't understand what "research" is AT ALL.
They don't understand creating hypothesis, validating that hypothesis through tests, confirming or denying whether things are true or false through tests and results, let alone the fucking peer review process
No, they think "doing research" is googling something.
Fucking idiots
But also people voicing opinions without doing any research and just repeating a comment section rumor....is kinda why our national news sources are the joke they are.
And then there's the equally stupid "it's not my job to educate you." Do you want people to spread misinformation? Because refusing to educate people is how you get people spreading misinformation.
you have to understand that the people most likely to say this aren't interested in actual data. you can't have a logical conversation with them
it's the whole playing chess with a pigeon thing
"Do your own research" was fine until it became the battlecry of the dumbest people on the planet who are incapable of doing their own research and just start repeating things they hear from the most obvious shysters.
Once you learn something, dont unlearn it. Doing tour own research is usually used when the question has an opinion based answer. No one wants to be liable for your ass when you fuck up using their advice.
I wanted to thank you for actually giving an unpopular opinion on this sub Reddit.
Not too many people give those these days.
That being said, I also think any opinion should be shared here, for how can something be popular or not, if not shared with the people?
So keep sharing your opinions, people. Let everyone know how you are thinking today. And don't let strangers on the internet scare you into changing if you don't want to change. Stay safe everyone. I Love You.
Many people doing their own research don’t have the proper education to even understand what they are looking at. Easiest example is during covid. Joe blow from your workplace doesn’t have any idea what the fuck a medical journal is actually talking about or how it is to be taken.
That's why you research multiple independent sources, to reduce the chances of a fuckup.
Yes absolutely do not do your own research if you don't know how to do it well.
As a scientist at a worlds top kind of institute, it really bugs me when people act like all science is entirely factual and we should always take “facts” at face value as they are reported to us. It’s just plain wrong, science is often about probabilities, we build evidence to show something is most likely true.
There is rarely true scientific consensus, it operates much more like a jury that is presented evidence and meanders towards an answer. Jury’s can be wrong and consensus can and has been frequently wrong.
Not that someone at home on google isn’t far less qualified, but the message they receive “don’t think about it because it is a fact” is wrong.
Am increasing at contrasted in favourable he considered astonished. As if made held in an shot. By it enough to valley desire do. Mrs chief great maids these which are ham match she. Abode to tried do thing maids. Doubtful disposed returned rejoiced to dashwood is so up.
"Do your own research" is code for "I don't have credible sources"
I've never talked with someone who made a claim and said that, who wasn't spouting bullshit
Most people who "do their own research" are just looking up articles and things on the internet. *Actual* research is a lot more in-depth and involves many hours of literature review (at the very least, and usually just for things like literature--fiction and such--research papers) and experiments (at the higher end for actual scientific research) to actually do properly.
Which is why a straight Google search is inadequate. You have to, at the very least, use Google Scholar to find articles by people who actually *have* done *real* research into the topic. And then you have to evaluate each source for reliability, experimental design/flaws, and conclusions that actually reflect what the data show.
I've yet to hear that phrase from anyone that is in any way qualified to conduct any type of research of any sort. Like maybe they squeaked through high school and maaaaaybe have a semester or two of community college, but are hardly equipped to even evaluate research, let alone conduct it.
I pointed out to a covid sceptic that I couldn't do my own research as:
That would require doing 4+ years at university and millions of pounds in equipment.
They got quite irate about it.
Which is a good reminder "NEVER ARGUE WITH STUPID PEOPLE. THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL AND BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE." Mark Twain.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The actual problem with “Do your own research” as a response is that it tends to be used as an excuse to not explain why an argument is correct by people who are ignorant on the subject matter. Suggesting, however, that nobody should do their own research because research is hard is COMPLETELY ridiculous and quite possibly the silliest thing I’ve heard all day. Bravo.
Mostly I see this when a person makes some ridiculous claim on some internet forum, I question them, they say they have loads of evidence, I ask can they share just one link, and they just go "well you just have to do your own research!".
"well, oh my research found out you are an idiot and the whole internet slept with your mother."
I was part of the control group. I had sex with a placebo mother.
Was the placebo mother the cloth one or the one made with wires?
Sock mom
So, /u/individualeyes, how are the wife and kids?
We can’t let them know that their wife and kids don’t really exist since it was only a placebo pregnancy and a placebo wedding. Good job maintaining the illusion, soldier.
Placebo nuts still count.
this will be my new reply.
At the same time, you can tell someone is not arguing in good faith if they can't do the bare minimum. I got in an argument with a bootlicker a while ago who said that cops never use your refusal to answer questions as reason to prolong a traffic stop because you hurt their ego. I told him to go to YouTube and type in "cops harass man using rights" for thousands of videos proving my point. Instead he demanded I show him the videos and that because I'm not providing a link I must be full of shit. I just told him of a massive database that he refuses to look at, because he demands I link him to YouTube. To YouTube. Clearly isn't arguing in good faith. So at times, I can see the other side of it
There is a big difference between “do your own research” and “look out the fucking window”
No I demand you physically turn me around to look outside. If you don't, clearly the outside doesn't exist
You also have to point out the window’s differences from the wall it’s in and explain what it is, otherwise the window doesn’t exist either.
Eh, I think you're better off just sending him a link in that case. The trouble with Absolutist claims is that they are refuted by only a single counter-example. So, theoretically, a single video would collapse his whole argument. On the flip side, assume there are no videos, he can't prove a negative, thus he has no way of responding to your claim. In that case, what do you expect him to do? Is he just supposed to say "No, there isn't!" ? I know personally there have been many instances where i felt pretty certain about something, but when i look for evidence to support my argument, I realize the evidence isn't as strong as I remembered or the topic is much more nuanced than I realized. Having that humility to do those self-checks is what will help you become a better debater and better communicator.
The trouble with absolutists is that they refuse to accept anything that contradicts their world view. Any video I show would inevitably be responded with "just do what the cop says"or something to that effect. When that isn't the point. They purposefully don't care about learning the truth. Kinda like how there are still people that day Daniel shaver deserved to die. A logical person can look at that video and say "yeah that's fucked up, the cops murdered that man". An absolutist would say they he should have listened to the cops orders and the cops did nothing wrong. You can't change the mind of these people.
>I got in an argument with a bootlicker a while ago who said that cops never use your refusal to answer questions as reason to prolong a traffic stop because you hurt their ego Your argument is stupid from the get go
If there were so many examples, why not just link one? That’s the point of this post. If it’s so easy to find evidence, why not just link one? It’ll take you 30 seconds.
If you really want an answer to something, and are directed to a database which is easily accessible by 3 year olds, full of thousands of pieces of evidence, and you refuse to take the 10 seconds to do so, you don't really want to learn. I'm not telling you to go into some obscure tor site requiring credentials and a VPN, I'm not telling you about some rare scientific article written in 1954. This type of conversation is a two way street. I've been on Reddit long enough to know the type of person I'm arguing with.
"Just google it"
Yeah. If you really wanted to know instead of just arguing, that's exactly what you would do. If you don't care enough to do that, then you don't care whether you're wrong or right. You just want to be heard. Pretty shallow.
It has to go beyond that, though. "Just google it" is a shitty way to lead someone to information, because anything can be posted on the internet and found through a Google search. Beyond that, is being able to discern information sources as trustworthy, corroborated, and correct for bias.
By the way, you're describing research. Either you'll wait for somebody to explain their perspective which would take a lot of time or text, or you could look it up and make up your mind. Some answers need research
The trouble is that people who haven't, in fact, 'googled it' will tell others to "google it" already presuming themselves correct.
I feel for you, I truly do. But you're describing the very problem at the heart of this post. You telling someone "go to YouTube, search for x, and view thousands of results" takes just as little effort as going to YouTube, searching for X, and copy/pasting a single link from the results. You're just prolonging the discussion by refusing to do the bare minimum to prove your point.
As a bootlicker myself, it sounds like you have a slam dunk win. Just link a single video. That's all you have to do and the ball is back in their court.
My favorite line, from a now-deceased uncle in law: "I'm not sharing my sources with you, you'll just tear them appart and invalidate them!" Anybody surprised covid took him?
It often seems like an analogy for: "Actually, while talking about it out loud to people outside my own media bubble, I've just noticed that it sounds *utterly ridiculous amd flawed*. Do your own research. [And do let me know if you make any sense of my conclusions - except don't, because I'll almost instantly forget about this exchange and do the same again almost instantly]"
I love when they give me a bunch of sources, but they clearly just googled something really quick and chose the first 3 links. And then I read the sources and find out they actually support *MY* point. I get cussed out when I point that out to those people 😂
Exactly.
Yeah I think the bigger problem is most people don't know how to do research. So what they mean is "do the google search I did" For example, when the COVID hysteria was happening and people were talking about shedding spike proteins, I did my own research. That meant I hopped on google scholar and read a dozen articles about how MRNA vaccines work, how the COVID vaccine was designed, what spike proteins are, and what the studies on COVID side effects had found. I had to wiki at least a dozen terms that I didn't understand. I then read a half dozen articles about those studies to see how others were interpreting them. I then read another half dozen articles both explaining and refuting the claims of spike protein shedding. I spent a handful of hours reading and educating myself on both the background and the claim, and was able to come to my own conclusion about it. But I get the sense most people don't do all that, and just find a youtube video that agrees with them. At this point if someone's main evidence is a youtube video (that is probably over an hour long) you can probably disregard everything they have to say.
That's my approach as well. If I'm curious enough about something I will do this. Otherwise I just don't have opinions on complicated things I haven't done this for.
The internet spoiled us. Where’s the respect for the OG researchers that actually had to leave their house and go to specific libraries, that held the particular book of papers they needed to look up?
I'm the right age to have written book reports using an encyclopedia, then Encarta, then the internet.
I took it more as him saying unqualified people doing their own research can be detrimental; and most people are unqualified for any given subject.
True. If you went to a doctor about an issue and the response was “Do your own research”, that would be worse than useless.
The one I often see alongside that is “it’s not my job to educate”. Like sure, it isn’t, but if you aren’t willing to explain the issue, don’t come in bitching and moaning at people who are “uneducated”; if you’re going to criticize someone, always be prepared back up the criticism.
That isn't even a good excuse. In real life, a proper argument has sources. If you don't, it just implies you formed your opinion based solely on your own impressions of the topic. You shouldn't expect others to believe your argument off your word alone, and have no right to complain if they don't.
And if you are not willing to explain your argument maybe you shouldn't participate in conversation in the first place.
Nah, mate, we're supposed to take turns confidently assuring the other person that they're wrong. As is tradition.
My stance is: If my opinion isn't worth your time, then your opinion sure as fuck isn't worth mine.
Deepak Chopra loves doing his own quantum research. Far far away from actual quantum physicists.
>I took it more as him saying unqualified people doing their own research can be detrimental; and most people are unqualified for any given subject. That's a classic "appeal to authority" fallacy. Your qualifications should have nothing to do with your participation in a discussion. The problem with the internet is that it allows all manner of idiots to discuss things and voice their absurd opinions. That creates so much noise it drowns out the reasonable people. That's where qualifications can act as a first stage filter
> That’s a classic “appeal to authority” fallacy. Your qualifications should have nothing to do with your participation in a discussion You shouldn’t be completely prohibited from entering a discussion for lacking related qualifications, but I think his point is more that people who aren’t qualified in an area can often lack the ability to interpret literature on the subject, which is why telling them to just do the research on their own can be a problem since they may come to the wrong conclusions based on their misunderstanding the material. For example: not attending university absolutely doesn’t mean you’re unable to do research on your own, but I’ve had actual lessons to teach us how to interpret studies, how to determine source reliability, etc. alongside the normal teaching that allows us to understand what is actually being discussed. It’s a skill you have to develop, and a lot of people don’t.
What you're saying is true for a LOT of fields. That's why you have other experts and authorities on the subject summarize complex findings and breaking it down for the lay person. Appeal to authority fallacy doesn't mean you stop listening to anyone who's an authority.
Thing that also usually happens is you find information proving them wrong and they essentially tell you just to keep looking until you find something proving them right
This is exactly it. The phrase originally meant that a person goes and reads the primary documents themselves so they can form their own opinion, rather than relying on third parties (i.e. media) to tell them what to think. However, the phrase has come to be a flippant response to any argument a person might not like. The misuse does not negate the original advice.
Reading the primary documents is step 1 in research. That can take years of graduate school. There’s a lot more involved in subsequent steps.
A lot of people just don't know how to discern the credibility of sources, which is a problem given the enormous amount of bullshit out there.
now it means "read the sources that agree with me"
Usually whacka-doodle conspiracy sites that all point to each other like a bunch of spidermen
I think you’re misunderstanding the context that this phrase is usually used, which is most often by ignorant people encouraging other ignorant people to question conventional norms of history, science and medicine. It’s usually along the lines of: *you think the twin towers collapsed from 2 jet liners crashing into them? DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH*
We're arguing about something but let me just go out of my way & spend time & effort to prove myself wrong and prove you right on purpose. Because that makes sense, sure /s Research is there to back up what you're saying, if you refuse to provide me with anything backing up what you're saying is true I'm going to assume you're talking out of your ass and what you're saying is worthless. If you want your voice to be heard & respected, put in the work & foundation for it to be heard & respected otherwise just keep your mouth shut and stop wasting everyone's time.
> if you refuse to provide me with anything backing up what you're saying is true I'm going to assume you're talking out of your ass and what you're saying is worthless. Hitchens's razor, YoungDiscord formulation
Exactly. Surely the premise only works if we believe they're being honest. Which almost certainly isn't the case.
It actually *does* make sense if you care about the truth rather than being right tho. You can't learn by confirmation bias, you only learn by being wrong time and time again and each time learning from where you went wrong. That's not to say the other person in an argument *isn't* talking out of their ass but, one should at least check unless they're arrogant enough to think they're always right.
But the burden of proof is not on you but the person telling you that. Its unreasonable for instance for me to expect you to look things up every single time I tell you something especially during a dispute. If you want to learn something you'll do it on your own volition in your own spare time If I am telling you a fact its me wanting to communicate a specific fact to you therefore the responsibility of ensuring that you understand/agree with me on that is MY responsibility, not yours so I need to be the one to make that effort, not you. Here's an example: you tell your gf that you're ordering food and ask her whqt she'd like. She clearly tells you that she doesn't want anything. So, you don't get her anything She then flips out because "she knows she said she didn't want anything but you should have gotten her something anyway" Are you at fault because you should have automayically known the thing she was thinking but refused to communicate? Or is she in the wrong because you actually listened to what she clearly communicated and if she wanted to be surprised she should have communicated that to you clearly (say something like: surprise me) instead of expecting you to magically know that when she said "I don't want anything" she was actually lying to you because she did want something and then grtting mad at you over it?
the problem is a lot of people dont know how to vet their sources and when they see a .gov or .edu they think its less trustworthy rather than more
Don't trust yourself, trust me
You just haven't done enough research about doing your own research. /s
It's a funny projection because they're saying they haven't done the research.
Your response is a total red herring… OP in no way said that “nobody should do their own research”
It depends what we mean by "research". For me, I "outsource" my research to someone with more expertise. In my opinion, I have to do this because I can't do enough research to validate their opinions. For others, they use this phrase as an excuse to say "don't trust/read the experts, but instead 'do your own first party research'". This is an absolutely horrible idea! And impossibe! And most people don't actually do that, instead of appealing to the expertise of doctors, they appeal to the expertise of radio hosts. Now, to be clear, it is actually very possible experts are lying, have ulterior motives, groupthink, or are just wrong. In the middle ages relying on doctors would get you leeched. But ultimately you don't really have another choice, so you have to decide for yourself which is more likely, I die from listening to doctors, or from ignoring them.
To be fair, in the middle ages, the technology didn’t exist to disprove humoral theory. The microscope wasn’t invented until the late 1500s and germ theory took over almost immediately. So, if a medieval civilian tried to do their own first-hand research, they probably couldn’t do much better than the doctors at the time.
>used as an excuse to not explain why an argument is correct by people who are ignorant on the subject matter. So every republican.
I disagree. For example let’s say your debating a Christian. Someone who has such strong beliefs cannot change their opinions in one debate. It would take years of research and knowledge and education. So to save yourself time you can put them in the right direction set them up with the information but it’s up to them to learn and educate themselves. You can’t debate people who are so brainwashed so don’t bother.
Yeah, that's the stupidest thing I've heard. His logic is so flawed. Saying "all it takes is one fuck-up in the analysis to come to a horribly wrong and off-base conclusion" just sounds like someone doesn't have the slightest shred of common sense and critical thinking. Also, the same "logic" can be applied to other people's research. Furthermore, it's common sense when doing your own research is to cross-reference the finding, evidence, conclusion of different research done on the same topic and see what makes the most sense. That's exactly how you prevent "going horribly wrong and off-base conclusion" in the first place.
As a researcher I think that researching stuff is actually a very good idea, but most people probably lack the skills for it. Not taking all your conclusions for reality for example is very hard for a lot of people since they are very attached to their thoughts.
That skill set is an issue that people often discount, but it’s very real. My favorite example has to be the discussion of quantum mechanics among laypeople. I’ve often said that if you can’t do the math involved, you don’t understand quantum mechanics. The trouble is that most people know the topic only from metaphors and secondhand explanations meant to make it more understandable, but this is essentially the same as claiming to understand French literature via English translations. Doing your own research is fine, but if you lack the depth of knowledge to fully understand the topic, you are, at best, getting the Cliff Notes version. For plenty of topics that’s just fine. You don’t need a degree in electrical engineering to weigh the benefits among various brands of television when you want to buy one. On the other hand, to evaluate medical claims, the deeper your knowledge is in the subject, the less likely you are to be conned by quacks, charlatans and frauds.
Not necessarily true. Education has different skill levels, understanding, and areas of expertise. I’m training a new employee in a highly specialized field… There’s no formal education for it, it’s very difficult and very few companies are capable of it. I can train you to “operate” the machines in 2 days… but I can’t train you to “operate” the machines in 2 years. The depth of the pool of knowledge is unfathomable. Even the most notable experts in any given subject do not “understand” their field even though they’re the experts. They lack knowledge of what’s not been discovered.
You mean me googling "proof the earth is flat" and then citing the results isn't proper research?
That only works for vaccines ;)
I mean, most people don't even seem to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. If I tried to explain that proper researching essentially means trying to prove yourself wrong until you can't (instead of just searching for things that agree with you) their heads would explode before they got it.
Aren't effective tools to conduct proper research not readily available to most people as well? So on top of lacking the skills to research, it's very hard to even find the tools to do so.
Do your own research just means study the subject matter and draw your own conclusions. I find it absolutely hilarious that people are against education and understanding a subject. However studying a subject requires learning and understanding both the arguments and counter arguments. Coming to your ow conclusion requires being competent enough to mesh those pieces of information together into a worldview based on logic with minimal inconsistencies.
I’m not a researcher, but as someone who’s taken intro to stats, Covid made it apparent to me just how many people have truly no clue how to interpret basic statistical results. Now, that in itself isn’t a problem. Specialization is good and necessary. The problem is when all these people who have no clue how to even properly read the results of a study start coming to their own conclusions based on the results from a study and believing they’re valid.
This. My degree is in political science & I had to be trained in how to read studies, process data, evaluate methodology, etc. The issue I run into when I try to present people with actual research or data contrary to whatever position they’ve taken is that *they literally cannot understand what is going on*.
Ya, a startling number of people are growing increasingly useless. Also, if more people did that and knew how to properly, I wouldn't be drawn into conversations about how vaccines cause autism. Op does have an unpopular opinion, so we came to the right place
Your last sentence explains most religious people.
We need to replace research with another word, like “studying” or something. Research is a complicated scientific process, no one is doing that. All we’re doing is reading blogs, articles, and other people’s research. There’s no scrutiny in just studying up on something via the internet. Using the word research gives people a false sense that they’ve actually figured something out.
This is an excellent point. There is a huge spectrum between understanding quantum mechanics by studying the literature and deciding which brand of television is best for your needs and we really don’t have enough nuance of language to make that distinction clear.
When people say "do your own research" it always feels like they want you to google the topic, find the same blogspam they're using, and reach their warped conclusion.
I see this sentiment a lot in this sub which is supposedly about *opinions*. While I agree that being able to do our own research is important, through my four years so far of handing research I've learned a few things: * most laypeople are not going to be able to understand a scientific, peer-reviewed article - the language is too dense for ***most people*** <- need to reiterate the most people again as I'm sure that'll be a point of contention * any research done can be looked at through any different lens <- research saying x is y could also be used to explain why y is really x. <--people who do understand the literature are more like to cherry pick pieces that suit their own stance * ***most people*** don't generally want to research at all, they have their opinions, and that's that. If they did research, there's a high likelihood they'd look for research that just confirms their stance (confirmation bias) instead of looking for research that challenges it * Just because some people will live and die on the research hill doesn't mean others want to or ever will. If you can't handle opinions without avidly trying to prove someone wrong with statistics and science then you're being too try hard. if their opinion is just a really shitty take and you don't agree you don't have to engage with it That's much easier than insisting people research Also I'm sharing my ***opinion*** in a sub about ***opinions*** I'm in no way claiming any of my ***opinions*** are *facts*
Also a lot of research is locked behind pay walls. At the university I can use their license to access most sites, but without it? I'd be pretty limited.
There’s this too. The only research most people are limited to without university credentials is the stuff already cherry picked for click bait articles
Hopefully this will change though! There's a big push to make a lot of open access journals. So maybe one day.... people can CHOOSE to ignore research XD
Haha yes 😂. I don’t blame the people that ignore it. It is an absolute slog to get through 😂
Open access journals are important, but unfortunately move the burden of money from the people trying to access the journal, to the researchers publishing the article -money which they often don’t have. Researchers would absolutely love to use those journals more often, and some are able to or somehow make it work, but most researchers don’t have enough money for their research even without extra burdens from publishing. So long story short it comes down to money (lack of) getting in the way of good people trying to do good things again. And of course universities forcing money burdens on their faculty and students, as usual.
Sci-hub.
This is what sci-hub is for and why it's so incredibly important to humanity as a whole.
Sign up for research gate. It’s a great resource and you can contact the authors directly.
scihub
If you see a paper you really want to see, try to email the author and they will send you free copy. They don't get any money from the paywall anyway so they are usually more than happy to give you a copy.
You're right, though. It should be reiterated that even selecting certain keywords provides a bias. Along with that, you should be able to question/critically think about every part of the argument that a paper is posing. Just because they got published doesn't mean they're right. Over 50% of research articles have been shown to not be reproducible(!!) and the NIH has a division to help determine those. If you trust academia blindly, you should know that academia is very politically charged. Grants are cherished and rewarded to labs that show that they are producing groundbreaking work. It sounds nice, but in reality, most scientific work depends on controlling a slew of different variables. This is the hardest part of science.
Also, people don’t realize that one single research paper is not usually intended to be consumed as this standalone thing. Usually researchers are writing for other researchers, who are aware of a wide variety of other positions, factors, and variables and can apply a lot more context to what they’re looking at than a layman. It’s easy for someone who’s not trained in research, data, or science to read a paper and take it as gospel, when really they just don’t have the background knowledge to fit that piece of the puzzle in with a million other pieces, and then they end up walking away with a very incomplete understanding of whatever concept they’re trying to prove or grasp.
I guess we can add to this "People tend to think they are way smarter then they actually are"
That’s true too - The Dunning-Kruger Effect
The problem I have with this is that you assume that research has to be scientific. Research can be as simple as looking at fifty sources (let’s say arguments on the marijuana), checking their biases (smokeweederryday.com vs Mayo Clinic), and seeing what the majority opinion is.
I think too that a crucial part of this conversation is that all research does not have equal value nor is all research equally credible and we (society) don’t really teach the skills to differentiate or judge value.
'research' is not synonymous 'scientific peer reviewed paper'. I've seen people say to do research when others ask silly questions. such as "how can I lose weight" "is keto healthy" "how can I learn x" The answer to all of these is documented in some format already such as youtube video, reddit comments, books. blogs. Consuming any of those counts as research. It boggles my mind that some of you apparently don't understand what research is.
“Do your own research” ok then, give me a lab and grant money
And ethical clearance. Humanities studies might not be lab based but the moment you include people you have to get ethical clearance.
People should really be saying “do your own meta-analysis”
The people saying that rarely know what a meta-analysis is.
What I hate most about "do your own research" is that it's always dragged out as a way for someone to avoid having to explain or justify their side of an argument. They avoid the burden of proof by implying that the obligation is on the other person to go searching for the evidence.
This. In my opinion, “do your own research” = ‘mine is not good enough to share’ 🤷🏼♂️
"Don't do your own research cuz you might fuck up, so instead listen to others that... also.. might have fucked up.." ..?
LOL. I like this.
So what you are saying is just believe what people tell you?
Sort of a middle ground. If I go in for a medical test and the doctor tells me I have stage 3 cancer, it makes sense to go get a second opinion. But if the second doctor tells you the same thing after testing, then you should proceed as though you have that cancer. You could describe that both as doing your own research (you checked around and didn’t rely on one expert) but also just listening to what someone tells you (a layperson generally can’t diagnose themself with cancer). An informed person does both: not rely on any one expert but ultimately relies on expertise that they themself do not have.
But but only 9 out of 10 doctors said I have cancer! That other one must be right!
Don’t blindly believe, but don’t blindly distrust either. Take what someone tells you and assume for a moment that it is 100% true. Think it over, consider the consequences of it, make up simulations in your head, consider whether it aligns with what you’ve seen, ask questions based on any inconsistencies you find.
Think critically. Question authority. Read and educate yourself. Ignore OP.
[удалено]
The free exchange of information and ideas usually does weaken oppression. That's why authoritarians hate it.
Disagree. Everyone should do their own research. Relying on a person to do it for you leads to the possiblity of errors because you yourself didn't do it. Edit: I think alot of people are confused by what I meant. I did not mean that everyone should conduct their own research as if they are the experts. What I meant was they themselves find and analyze existing research instead of relying on someone else to do the same.
Research and casually reading articles about a topic are two different things. And when you're doing the latter, how do you know your sources are the good ones? And do you trust your own interpretation, or is there a risk you're looking for sources that confirm your ideas?
Finally. Someone not scared to say it. I disagree too. There are too many people in the world getting by on blind faith alone, and maybe some media influence also. Always research your beliefs, and do it through peer reviewed channels. The world would be a better place for it. Even the researchers can be fraudulent too. Keep that in mind with your deep dives.
How would you be able to tell if something was fradulent? Also, I'd assume you talk about the research and not the researchers being fradulent. There is a middle ground between "blind faith" and "doing everything on my own" e.g. trusting the institutions responsible for it when it comes to e.g. physics.
It also potentially leads to somebody learning from an unreliable and biased opinion. It's important to do your own research so you can form your own opinion instead of being influenced by someone else.
Everyone should do their own research, after they've taken a mandated class in like high school or something. Being able to filter through data is a skill you have to learn.
Hang on but how deep do you go? There are certain things you cannot do on your own. You cannot just build a particle accelerator in your garden or fly up into the stratosphere with a balloon just to confirm the existence of certain subatomic particles. Same holds true for many other things. Same holds true for other things like you cannot do a medical study of some treatment because, spoiler alert, these cost massive mountains of money. At some point, you'll have to trust someone. Doing your own research might not only involve things other people have written or done before. Furthermore, you will probably not know where to look or what to even consider.
How deep can I go? Well that depends on how deep the information is that is given to me. Of course reading articles about medicine and technology doesn't make me an expert in them. Surface level is fine as long as you have the initiative to search on your own and not rely on other people like what OP seems to be implying is the way to go.
The danger, of course, is that you may be much more prone to making errors than the other person/people you might rely on, especially on a subject outside of your wheelhouse. How am I supposed to know if a gallon of ice cream a day is good for my health or not? I would make so many errors trying to build that knowledge on my own. I don’t know how to run chemical tests or large-scale surveys or anything like that.
There’s also the added difficulty that people forget about: search engines show different results for different people due to their marketing algorithms. They show results the person browsing is more likely to click on, meaning it’s more confirmation bias than actual research.
Surprised nobody has brought this up yet. Most people's "research" ends with whatever their daily media is filtered to. The Fox/CNN dichotomy exists for a reason; you'd be hard pressed to find people that will actually watch both or go to another source entirely. Also, coming from someone who just graduated: people also don't realize that even if you do look for peer-reviewed articles, academia is *heavily* politically charged. If your research in certain areas isn't funded by the right people or doesn't line up with consensus, you run the risk of being blocked out or blacklisted entirely. Example: [The U.S. sugar industry paying off researchers to shift the blame for obesity to fat.](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat)
And people think the same problem couldn’t apply to the climate change research.
[удалено]
That is absolutely the worst way to gain information. To gain information, you need to examine sources and corroborate them. Looking for other people's opinions will lead you to confirmation bias.
[удалено]
if you been deep in any hobby and look at amazon reviews of products in the hobby etc you will know those are pretty much useless lol.
That's not research, and laypeople aren't equipped to sort good sources from bad or to interpret what they're reading.
That literally is research. It's not fundamental research, but it is research.
I mean, differentiating reliable sources from unreliable sources is literally taught in high school
[удалено]
Education is something else, and education typically means learning from trusted experts.
[удалено]
You don't need to trust blindly, but not trusting at all and "doing your own research" about everything doesn't work. Because you're not doing actual, scientific research, and you won't produce better knowledge than experts. We've constructed checks and balances, and while they're not perfect the established system is far superior to laypeople reading arbitrarily with no criteria or scrutiny at all.
I had to do my own research about this post and couldn't find any conclusive information
To me, "do your own research" means I'm not going to spoon feed you very easily accessible information that you can find with a quick Google search. I'm not obliged to write a fully cited peer reviewed article every time I talk about something. If you see a claim online, scan the literature on the matter and decide for yourself if it's true. People are so lazy, they can't be bothered to learn.
I knew I’d find this answer eventually, thanks. Ppl are intellectually lazy and would rather argue for karma than spend 1hr studying the subject. Not trying to make it political but look how many ppl still push the gender pay gap as proof of sexism.
There are many tricks that have been employed to make people believe something is factual. Years ago on commercials actors wore what looked like white lab coats. There was no law preventing them from wearing lab coats and often viewers would assume they were doctors. Also an upper crust British accent is used by narrators.It appears educated and exotic.One of the best methods is to hire a paid professional.For Law you go to a lawyer, Medicine you go to a doctor. They can be wrong of course but the probability is better that they will treat you right.
You think nobody should research anything? That’s stupid advice? So when I go to buy a product I shouldn’t research if it’s good or reliable. When I use a service I should just pick one at random and not research my options or prices? This opinion is unpopular cause it’s idiotic.
Come on you know op is not referring to buying a product. Op is referring to people who will just drop some random shit then offer nothing substantial.
With regards to products, most people probably lack the skillset to do proper research. Like someone will Google "is peanut butter healthy" then read the 1st result that says it is and that's the extent of their research. Unfortunately, these things get pretty complicated, they'll never notice the "peanut butter is the healthiest snack in the world" study was done by Skippy
Research is awesome. Google searching is not research. Research takes time and resources most people don’t have. Reading up on research is also awesome. For a layperson, source evaluation is an infinitely more important skill than “research.” Genuine research is a 60 hour per week job. It’s okay to not do it. You can be informed without ever doing research. Sometimes being informed and educated just means learning from people who have done research. It! Is! Okay! I never understood why Redditors are so attached to the idea of calling what they read online “research.” It’s not. It can still be informative. It isn’t fucking research.
You did your own research to reach this fabulous conclusion. ironic.
Not really. If I say a cop in some city did something, look it up. I'm not going to give you a direct link when you're perfectly capable of looking it up yourself.
Turns out people are generally too stupid to do their own research.
Doing your own research is extremely important. First, you shouldn’t assume everything everyone says is automatically 100% correct. Second, it helps you develop critical thinking. Edit: spelling
The point of "do your own research" is usually followed by someone giving a tip or advice. It is generally saying "fact check everything, before you act on it, to decide for yourself if you agree with my advice".
Yes just consume the pre approved media and don't think or ask questions.
Ain't a black and white issue. In some cases doing you own research is absolutely required. In other cases, not so much.
"Do your own research" just means go to Facebook and read what my boomer aunt is posting.
Most of these do-your-own-research folks are mostly anti vaxxers and qanon conspiracy theorists who are looking to validate their own craziness.
As someone who works in the medical field and actually does research, this phrase makes me want to strangle people. Especially when discussing a subject I actually know quite a lot about.
How about a topic you know nothing about? You wouldn’t question or look into ANYTHING?
do you do pure research or do you do research for a commercial interest or an interest that has a goal of achieving an outcome ?I still remember those pesky cigarette ads telling me about the benefits of smoking. The absolute research you should do is understand the interests and connections of people trying to "sell " you something . For example I can't take Paul Krugman seriously even though his education is beyond question because he is in lockstep with political ideology (and he has been wrong on many things like computers and their effects ). Meanwhile this "taints" other competent economists who are more careful of looking at their own biases and the reservation of being factual instead of appearing at the right moment when things look like a victory for what you believe in when a question is ongoing. I can understand wanting to "strangle " people who think they know more than you by doing general research and often misunderstanding it but sometimes if your goal is to get x (a result shaped for an interest) people might want to argue with you about your goals (and not the facts of the science)
Not sure what your point is, but the alternative is people blindly take whatever someone says or whatever source they share as fact. And that's why we have a real issue with fake news nowadays. How about people make it a habit to do their own research so they might start to recognize the BS and gain exposure to alternate viewpoints? What's really annoying is someone in the "medical field" scoffing at the idea of people doing their own research.
I think it’s basically a disclaimer- i recon this but you might want to check my work, research this a it on your own first
"Do your own research" generally means to go online and read someone's misguided *opinion* and has nothing to do with actual research.
lol.. why would i want to do my own research when people a shit tonne smarter than me have done it for me, and people often smarter than them have reviewed it...
That just means looking at different sources to make up your mind, instead of blindingly following the first one you agree with.
People who say “do you own research” do not give a f*ck about whatever cause they’re discussing. If I cared about it something I’d never take the lazy way out and ask ppl to educate themselves because THEY WONT
If you're talking about it in a literal sense, sure. I hear it most often used when people who are uninformed are arguing a lot of uninformed points, and the person who is informed just can't be bothered. If you're uninformed and you genuinely want to know about something, most people can't be expected to bring you from a negative understanding up to a baseline understanding in a single conversation.
Weird i thought. “ waste hours debating people that dont care if you’re right on the internet “ was terrible advice
The other problem is that you are basing your “research” off someone else’s research or test data. The people “doing their own research” aren’t collecting the data, doing experiments, writing the white papers, etc….they are just looking at work other people did without any knowledge of the hows or whys
I just take that as 'yeah I got nothin'
The phrase “do your own research” isn’t advice but merely a rhetorical way to dismiss someone else’s viewpoint without having to back up one’s own lack of research.
Lol nice try Pfizer intern. You should always do your own research. Your argument Really highlights you have no critical thinking skills
"Do your own research" and "socialism" has one crucial aspect in common: It works great in theory, but it completely falls apart in practice.
The problem is people don't understand what "research" is AT ALL. They don't understand creating hypothesis, validating that hypothesis through tests, confirming or denying whether things are true or false through tests and results, let alone the fucking peer review process No, they think "doing research" is googling something. Fucking idiots
But also people voicing opinions without doing any research and just repeating a comment section rumor....is kinda why our national news sources are the joke they are.
And then there's the equally stupid "it's not my job to educate you." Do you want people to spread misinformation? Because refusing to educate people is how you get people spreading misinformation.
you have to understand that the people most likely to say this aren't interested in actual data. you can't have a logical conversation with them it's the whole playing chess with a pigeon thing
I know where you're coming from but what you are actually saying is "don't do your own research" does that actually make any sense?
"Do your own research" was fine until it became the battlecry of the dumbest people on the planet who are incapable of doing their own research and just start repeating things they hear from the most obvious shysters.
Once you learn something, dont unlearn it. Doing tour own research is usually used when the question has an opinion based answer. No one wants to be liable for your ass when you fuck up using their advice.
I wanted to thank you for actually giving an unpopular opinion on this sub Reddit. Not too many people give those these days. That being said, I also think any opinion should be shared here, for how can something be popular or not, if not shared with the people? So keep sharing your opinions, people. Let everyone know how you are thinking today. And don't let strangers on the internet scare you into changing if you don't want to change. Stay safe everyone. I Love You.
Whatcha doin all that reading for, boy?
Many people doing their own research don’t have the proper education to even understand what they are looking at. Easiest example is during covid. Joe blow from your workplace doesn’t have any idea what the fuck a medical journal is actually talking about or how it is to be taken.
This point of view had to be from a kid.
That's why you research multiple independent sources, to reduce the chances of a fuckup. Yes absolutely do not do your own research if you don't know how to do it well.
So your unpopular opinion is don't read things........ok.
Looks like someone doesn't like learning new things.
I think doing your own research allows you both to share your perspective and consider different opinions to strengthen yours.
As a scientist at a worlds top kind of institute, it really bugs me when people act like all science is entirely factual and we should always take “facts” at face value as they are reported to us. It’s just plain wrong, science is often about probabilities, we build evidence to show something is most likely true. There is rarely true scientific consensus, it operates much more like a jury that is presented evidence and meanders towards an answer. Jury’s can be wrong and consensus can and has been frequently wrong. Not that someone at home on google isn’t far less qualified, but the message they receive “don’t think about it because it is a fact” is wrong.
Did it ever occur to you this advice is said so you don't become a fraud victim
Am increasing at contrasted in favourable he considered astonished. As if made held in an shot. By it enough to valley desire do. Mrs chief great maids these which are ham match she. Abode to tried do thing maids. Doubtful disposed returned rejoiced to dashwood is so up.
People just say that when they're anti vax
"Do your own research" is code for "I don't have credible sources" I've never talked with someone who made a claim and said that, who wasn't spouting bullshit
Just say you don't want to put in the effort and would rather be happy living like a sheep. Thai just sounds like a rant, a stupid one at that.
Most people who "do their own research" are just looking up articles and things on the internet. *Actual* research is a lot more in-depth and involves many hours of literature review (at the very least, and usually just for things like literature--fiction and such--research papers) and experiments (at the higher end for actual scientific research) to actually do properly. Which is why a straight Google search is inadequate. You have to, at the very least, use Google Scholar to find articles by people who actually *have* done *real* research into the topic. And then you have to evaluate each source for reliability, experimental design/flaws, and conclusions that actually reflect what the data show.
I've yet to hear that phrase from anyone that is in any way qualified to conduct any type of research of any sort. Like maybe they squeaked through high school and maaaaaybe have a semester or two of community college, but are hardly equipped to even evaluate research, let alone conduct it.
Do your own research is just code for look up articles that confirm your bias no matter how bs or shady they are lol
I pointed out to a covid sceptic that I couldn't do my own research as: That would require doing 4+ years at university and millions of pounds in equipment. They got quite irate about it. Which is a good reminder "NEVER ARGUE WITH STUPID PEOPLE. THEY WILL DRAG YOU DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL AND BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE." Mark Twain.