aberkok

I heard about this and just found an article on it in the Guardian UK as I was reading it this morning. I subscribe to this so a link wouldn't work...so I posted the full column.

I think this article is extremely relevant to the TFP (I even italicized "extremely"). We are a group of unregulated individuals who discuss almost anything you can think of. Often the point has come up that we discuss things without holding degrees in the subject, but "that's just our opinion." Is it harmful to put this level of discourse on a pedestal as Time magazine has?

I'm inclined to agree with Berlins on the whole. While I hate the word "expert," which is too often used to give someone's position a free pass, it is important to hold highly, if not defer to, the opinion of someone with years of specialized training.

Another point: to me, an expert is not a static qualification and said person is always learning, always trying to grow into bigger shoes and diversify. Always questioning what they already know. I don't like the label of "expert," because when properly used (paradoxically) it singularly quantifies someone who is always changing and growing.

Having said that, is someone who is going through these personal and intellectual changes in their pursuit of excellency in a subject more valuable than a tweed suited, pipe smoking Ph.D holder? I'm starting to confuse myself.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Sultana

I can see two sides to this.

A) It is good to have a cadre of trained, educated, and experienced people to perform certain tasks - that example of the South Korea news phenominon is rather shocking and depressing. I can see that happening here in America, to our detriment. Of course, I am a professional communicator (although not a newscaster), so I suspect my feelings on that matter would be stronger than the average person's opinion.

B) I think that over the years, too much credit and glory, if you will, has been *automatically* accorded to those who have simply earned a degree, even an advanced degree. On the surface this may contradict my first point, but what I mean is that likely we all know people who have been given Ph.Ds (I say given, rather than earned on purpose) who are frankly idiots, never mind being subject matter experts.

Also, it's gotten to the point where it's very difficult to get a good job if you do not have a degree, no matter how good you are, or how much experience you have.

Overall, I think this direction is a backlash on elitism, which paints with the same brush those who are specially trained and experienced in their fields. Plus, I think that people do not like to accept that, for example, someone with a trained palate may have a more "valuable" (subjective term, valuable) contribution to evaluating the merits of a resturant then they do. But it's true that someone who is happy eating mainly fast-food burgers is not going to have the same opinion of a meal prepared by a master chef in a dedicated quality kitchen.

It's an image problem, and a degradation of the "I don't know (art, food, news, rhetorical criticism), but I know what I like (cartoons, fast food, sound bites, Steven Segal)."

Let them eat cake!

Right?

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

abaya

Are these things mutually exclusive?... they are both experts in one way or another. As long as they use their knowledge and analytical skills responsibly, along with a strong dose of common sense, I don't have a problem with people who actually "know" something.

When I come to TFP, I am not coming here to acquire specialized knowledge, other than perhaps sexual knowledge (which very few people have PhD's in!). Specialized knowledge is what a classroom or job experience is for. For me, I come to the TFP (and read blogs, other boards, etc) because I am interested in taking the pulse of "ordinary" people (including myself), of touching base with people like me, as well as not like me... but certainly people who are NOT like anyone in my strictly academic environment. It is recreation for me, not knowledge-gathering in any real sense. It is a form of coming 'round the water cooler, of measuring pop culture, status quo, what's in or out, as well as getting second opinions on my own personal issues (which again, there are few experts for, other than my therapist)... but otherwise, no, I do not rely on civilian news-reporting in any form.

The TFP is like one giant "Opinions" or "Editorials" page in a newspaper... and so are all the blogs in the world. It has its place, but to accord them a status any higher than "opinion," perhaps at most "informed/educated opinion," would be foolish, in my mind.

/just your "ordinary" flannel-pajama suited, coffee-slurping PhD student...

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

aberkok

Well I never meant to set up two stereotypes and pit them against each other In fact I can't much think of anyone I ever met who was really like the old, bad comb-over professor I started to describe. See what happened!? The backlash against academia has even touched someone who got a lot out of the university system!

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

host

Well....we could attempt to compensate for the "that's just our opinion" limitation, when we post on these, or any other threads in internet forums, by sharing how "we know, what we know"..... I do that by posting excerpts (with links) of articles, or entire articles. The reason for that is that much content is archived, sometimes within days of when it is posted "free" online, behind "pay to retrieve" "walls" on many sites that offer timely news reporting and or commentary.

I try to highlight the most salient points with "bold" tags. The feedback that I get is that the way "I do it", is not too popularly received. Ironically, most prefer reading what I think amounts to short posts with no citations or links, no clues of the origins of the influences upon those posters who might just as well be "talking out their asses", given how little that they offer to substantiate how they "know" what they post that they "know".

I suspect that the posted opinions of these folks are legitimized by readers who have a preconceived leaning towards agreement with the unsubstantiated opinions posted. They seem to function in a "closed loop" where "everybody knows", or "of course this is so...." that renders them resistant to contrary opinion backed by solid referenced citations.

They make it clear that they don't want to read anything that is "too long". There is a strong preference that encourages one to "tell us what you think, in your own words"......but....aren't there enough people doing that, already?
Do posts that accomplish that, and only that, do the same thing that I try to do, but leave out the "how I know what I know" is because of this news reporting, from this source, which impresses me as reputable because....or from this excerpt from this report, produced by the independent inspector general of this non-partisan......

Ordinary people do not want to be provided with several ways to potentially challenge a given poster's opinion....which can easily done if a cited reference is authored by someone of questionable reputation, or originates from an information distribution channel (a website, a publisher, a news gathering agency, a shill front, financed by lobbyists or an industry, or by a PR firm representing them, or by a PR firm with a contract from DOD, DHS, or CIA....)
...or contains "facts" easily disputed by findings of numerous other "experts".

Ordinary people seem to accept or reject everything at "face" value....the way TV's Judge Judy gives equal weighting to every bit of unsubstantiated "testimony" produced in her TV "court" room. The result is that they remain ordinary....and they seem to like it that way. The downside is that they elect the leadership that we are stuck with now....they surrender constitutional rights, without a whimper, in exchange for "security", and they unquestioningly and enthusiastically support the jingoistic bullshit that manifests itself in religiously flavored nationalism and patriotism that suits the needs for manpower in the "army of one", commanded by the "decider".

Ordinary is incurious and resolute, and the highest result is often, at best, IMO....mediocrity.

Ourcrazymodern?

Experts are valuable and neccesary, because ordinary people need them. IMO
it's always been so. Thus ordinary people are necessary to the extraordinary, if only as a foil.
Allowing the people to talk about things of all sorts: Priceless!

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

ratbastid

The notion of the collaborative "Web 2.0" is that everyone is smarter than anyone. It's not the singular "you" (no matter how many mirrors Time mails out), but the collective "us".

Sultana

Beautifully stated.

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

Charlatan

That is exactly right my bastidly friend.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ratbastid

Glad you like.

I've been building collaborative and user-generated web sites for various clients for quite a while now (my latest, for instance: <a href="http://www.tgp.com">BLATANT PLUG</a>. Oh, and it's seriously NSFW). It's amazing to see a "group intelligence" arise from hundreds of users hitting your code.

Lasereth

I can see how some people would want to see more publications from everyday ordinary people and believe that ordinary people's opinions and reviews should be just as worthy of debate as a professional.

But I don't agree with it.

When an average, everyday friend of mine tells me to go see a movie that is really good, when I go see it, it sucks 90% of the time, because my friend doesn't know how to review movies.

When the average person tells me to try out a new videogame, 90% of the time the game sucks ass, because the person doesn't know how to block out cognitive dissonance (making yourself like the game or movie because you spent money on it, even if it sucks).

Some (keyword: SOME) critics and professionals know how to avoid fanboy bias and cognitive dissonance and get straight to the point about a product, due to education, sheer intelligence and/or experience in the field, or a simple knack for the industry. What I've found is the best way to find these professionals-who-know-what-they're-doing is to simply read. Read their reviews. Read their opinions. Find out if you agree with what they're saying, and then mark that professional as someone who might have an influence on your life.

Ordinary people are perfectly capable of giving quality opinions on entertainment, news, guides, etc. but most are not.

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

pan6467

What happened to deciding for yourself?

I go see a movie because I like the previews, like the premise or the actors. Very rarely, if ever, will I see a movie solely because someone recommended it.

I buy what I want in all aspects, I may look and make sure like with a car, that the model isn't falling apart or been recalled.

In the end, everyone has an opinion and that opinion matters to only them. If you need a friend or a critic or someone to tell you what to buy or what movies and shows to watch..... then I suggest, breaking out making up your own mind and seeing how much you will grow and learn.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Lasereth

If you go see movies because you think they'll be good then most of the time you waste your money. How many movies come out these days that are actually GOOD? I'm not risking my money because the studio hired a good trailer maker. Same with videogames -- just because I want the game to be good doesn't mean it WILL be good. Buying games because I'm a fan of the series or watching a movie or reading a book because I HOPE it will be good isn't my idea of fun. It just seems awfully wasteful to throw money and time away on something that will most likely suck (most movies, games, and books that come out are terrible). Coming to your own conclusions about something is an important part of life, but I'm not gonna dump my earned money into entertainment that might be shitty. Most people do, however, and then it's just a plethora of ships caught in the spiraling sea of cognitive dissonance. If you have enough money to buy every game you hope is good and see every movie you hope is good, then more power to you, but I sure as hell don't.

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

roachboy

the value of what is said lay in what is said, not in who is saying it.
i know as many "experts" as "ordinary people" who haven't got anything to say.
i know as many "experts" as "ordinary people" who have very insightful, interesting things to say.
deference to "experts" is servility.
deference to "ordinary people" is servility.
they are the same servility, reverse images of the same.

if you fetishize the position of the speaker, what you are really doing is looking for an excuse to not think about what is being said.
you want a speaker who occupies a position of uncontaminated authority, like what you imagined your parents to have when you were around 4 years old.

but, for better or worse, none of us are 4 years old: for better or worse, that way of seeing parental authority is at best a distant mirage.
for better or worse, you have to think critically about what is said.

of course you can "choose for yourself" to not do it.
but it is better to explicitly choose that, rather than to simply default into it: in my more pollyanna moments, i like to think that the moment of explicit choice undermines the choice itself. "i think i will surrender thinking now"---kinda ugly, aint it?

i find the time magazine choice to be vaguely interesting, but not for the reasons that have turned up here so far.
i think time is sweating about its readership.
i think time is also in something of a political bind, its run-of-the-mill support for whomever is in power having encountered limits that could damage it in terms of market share.
so i think time is tossing a kind of bone to its readership, appealing to its vanity:

you, anonymous consumer, are the Shit.
we like you. you like us.
keep buying time. we will keep liking you.
it doesnt matter if you are an idiot. when you buy time, you aren't an idiot. you can purchase not being an idiot every week. see how affirming consumption can be?
so keep buying time.
we like you.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

JustJess

roachboy... I think you've got the point there. Both of them - that wanting someone else to make the decision is rather infantile, and that Time is putting out some desperate moves.

And I think that the "collective us" are usually "collective idiots". It's always about the lowest common denominator, not the highest, nor even the median.

We must take in sources of information together with the understanding of where those sources of info are from - what's their point, their goal, their bias. But as a matter of practicality, we must also limit our sources of information - we can only take in so much to make one informed decision. If we truly considered all sides of all problems, and did the research to back it up, we would get nothing done, ever. That is why we need others' opinions.

Experts are useful for summing up quantifiable information. Ordinaries are useful for summing up qualifiable information. I.e. I want expert info on car safety, and ordinary info on how enjoyable the restaurant is.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Ourcrazymodern?

[QUOTE=JustJess]roachboy... I think you've got the point there. Both of them

- what's their point, their goal, their bias? But as a matter of practicality, we must also limit our sources of information - we can only take in so much to make one informed decision. If we truly considered all sides of all problems, and did the research to back it up, we would get nothing done, ever. That is why we need others' opinions.

Experts are useful for summing up quantifiable information.

There is certainly too much information (and that which passes for it) floating around! In a "simpler" world it wasn't necessarily easier to learn more, faster, but it was easier to believe what you learned.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

pan6467

[QUOTE=Ourcrazymodern?]You don't need "experts" to give you what you need. You just look at what is important to you, focus on that. The rest, you find sources that present both sides make YOUR opinion and stand by it. If a source comes along and challenges one of your views look at the challenge and decide if it does influence you more.

I am quite happy making up my own mind on issues and things of import to me. The rest, I may have an opinion on, but I don't care enough to worry about it, because it is not that important to me.

You can go nuts trying to worry about everything, likewise you can go nuts giving yourself over to how "experts" deem things should be. In the end the only person living your life is you. YOU make the decisions you have to live with, YOU live with the consequences of your own actions. Therefore, you need to do what is right for you, not what someone else tells you.

One big problem today is everyone wants the government to make the decisions for them, wants the government to protect them, wants government to just be there..... so they can blame government and not face consequences for their actions.

"My kid just got busted for having a gun at school" Thus it is the school's fault, society's fault, government's fault, but not mine. Hence PC, hence, lawsuits for everything, hence making issues like smoking, trans-fat bigger than they truly are. "Focus on those, keep hate alive, don't see how your wages buy less and less in quantity and quality, don't see the fact we have deficits everywhere, don't see that jobs are being exported.... see only the issues we deem important and let us tell you how to think about them."

By economically keeping you living paycheck to paycheck and bombarding you with consistent negativity, the government psychologists (any psychologist really) knows that the people as a whole will break and give their decision making to the government and to a lesser degree the media.... that people will continue to rely more and more on government and to lesser degrees the media to tell them how to think, what to do.

Hence, the constant attacks on media. If government takes the media out, or gets the majority who are breaking to distrust media enough.... that leaves just the government for people to turn to.

I know sounds paranoid, but, that's my opinion and view. I don't have to live paranoid and refuse to. I focus on positive energy, make my reality as positive as possible and believe that my theory is either nuts or people will break but not the way government wants them to, but rather positively and taking back their choices.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ratbastid

I think the article quoted in the OP completely misses the point.

The idea of the collaborative and user-generated internet that occasioned the naming of "You" as person of the year doesn't mean that a guy on the street gets the same weight as a credentialed expert. It means that individual users are recognized as a source of content AND the collaborative effort of ALL users is leveraged as a filtering and taxonomic device.

On the site I posted above, for instance, adult webmasters and other owners of porn or softcore photos submit galleries with an initial category and a set of tags ("Blonde, hot, big boobs, outdoor", for instance). After a moment passes, during which my ingeniously crafted code makes thumbnails out of the images and posts the post into the CMS, the gallery shows up at the top of the "Latest" tab.

Each post has a current score, a "vote up", and a "vote down" link. Those of you who visit digg.com will find this familiar. High-scored posts end up on the front page (the "Popular" tab). Galleries with low scores get bumped from the site completely. We take a fraction of a vote for views of the content--so, clicking to the gallery page is worth a partial vote, each full size image you view up to a certain limit is worth a partial vote, etc. I actually use vote velocities, rather than raw score, to determine promotion or demotion actions.

The idea here is that the collective opinions of all the users will have the cream float to the top, as it were. And so far, it's working. The general preference of the site's visitors seems to be for professional "babe" photos and high-quality amateurs. Porn screen caps don't seem to be so highly favored. Interestingly, there hasn't been a single hardcore post promoted yet.

It's easy to get distracted by the adult content here, and think the site is about that. The important part is the relationship to the users. The site is just a structure for the user's creation. If I want to upload photo sets of my wife, and tag them with "ratbastids_girl", I can do that. Then I can link to the page that searches by that tag, and I've got my very own site within the bigger site. If those submissions get popular, I gain reputation, and my posts are looked forward to, I'm respected, my wife is lusted after, etc.

It used to be that--while making some noise about being a free forum for public publishing--the Internet was very much read-only for most lay users. It's now a read-write-submit-and-collaborate medium, and that level of interaction has developed and is developing in very interesting and novel ways. That's what's behind this "You" person of the year thing.

Charlatan

To me what this is all about is that the means of (media) production and distribution have been liberated.

The means of production had it's first big break when the Rodney King tapes broke. At that time, we realized anyone with a video camera could produce something that could reach millions. But the means of distribution were still controlled by conventional media.

The Internet has not only given us new ways to produce but has also given us the means of distribution. Now anyone can share.

And that's what Web 2.0 is all about. Any consumer is now potential a producer.

This truly is revolutionary. I don't care what anyone say. I have spoken with top television executive (I sort of am one) and they are all worried. It will be the ones that figure out how to play in this new field and more importantly find sources of revenue in this new field that will survive.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Nizzle

Don't be so quick to dismiss "You". Right now, the so-called experts are self-procliamed as such and pawns of some agenda or another. Maybe the problem isn't that "ordinary > experts" it's that experts are more often these days full of shit.

__________________
Nizzle

Gilda

I've always wondered why Hitler or President Ahmadinejad would be considered "dodgy" or upset people. A few years ago I remember it being suggested that Osama Bin Laden would be appropriate, and I'd have to agree. Why is recognizing that the person who's had the biggest impact on world events did so in a negative way offensive?

On the main topic, I see both an advantage and a disadvantage to user created content. The advantage is obvious, in that it allows for things to be tailored to the average or typical consumer. The disadvantage is that popular isn't always a good reflection of quality, and specialized knowledge quite often does enhance the degree to which one understands quality and is able to express that knowledge to others. Some opinions are more informed, based on a higher degree of expertise, knowledge, intelligence, and experience than others and deserve to be given more weight as a result. Not all opinions are equal.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Cynthetiq

Media folks are calling this stuff User Created Content or UCC, it does send a chill in the industry most are trying to figure out just how to make money off of it, or even leverage it into something that does translate into a TV show.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

roachboy

i am not sure that the creation of more "democratic" forms of distribution of outputs (video, sound, etc.) necessarily translates into anything like a liberation of anything YET...this is not to downplay its importance, either: what seems to be happening in the shorter run is a redefinition of expertise--how the notion is assigned, how it deploys, who gets to claim it, etc. away from the basically capitalist-bureaucratic notion of expertise as exclusive specialization--the mirror image of bureaucratic expertise in a narrow area. because this division of intellectual labor is mirrored in the organization of the educational system, you wont start seeing anything revolutionary until you start seeing education modifying its orientation.

power is primarily power over social reproduction.


tangentially related point:

for every band that gets signed to a major, there are hundreds that do not. which bands are "better"?

for every film that gets funded and distributed, there are hundreds of others made by "amateurs" that do not.
which films are "better"?

the problem of evaluating according to what is said or made rather than according to who makes it or which corporate entity profits from it remains unanswered in any simple inversion of the existing state of affairs.

loosening the chokehold of corporate control over production and distribution of cultural goods is a fine thing--but it is not revolutionary in itself.
loosening the equation of quality of production with a corporate imprimatur is also a fine thing--but almost all of the most interesting and radical production out there in the land is already happening well outside the narrow purview of corporate media.

the idea that corporate backing and quality of production of cultural goods have anything really to do with each other is nuts. it always has been.
to think otherwise is to think that markets are rational.
they aren't.

and i hope that the existing media structure never figures out how to generate cash from a more decentralized system.
i would enjoy watching the existing corporate media hegemony implode.
it is already happening in music.
where's the revolution?

open source has been around for a long time now: the idea was that it could rely on a meritocracy amongst programmers and develop better systems because of that.
it is a great idea, and a very interesting social process.
but where's the revolution?

and this from someone who finds the notion of the existing order burning to be a desirable one.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

fresnelly

Working in Theatre, my little joke is that only a Critic can sit in an audience full of laughing patrons, and declare the show unfunny.

And yet, while Merit determined by popularity is fine, it's the "experts" who can alert us to something special and innovative that lies outside our experience or comfort level.

Take Cheese. I love cheese and have my stable of favourites. If I started a thread on "Favourite Cheeses" here, popular types such as Brie, Camembert, Cheddar and so on, would rise to prominance. Those are all great cheeses, and should be appreciated, but if we rely strictly on collective popularity as the standard of Merit, why explore beyond the top 10. Just look at commercial radio for the result.

Today I discovered Shropshire Blue because the guy in front of me at the cheese counter was buying some and the proprietor offered me a sample. After seeing it on display, I had assumed it was too strong and never would have tried it. Instead I found it creamy and bold, with a wonderful texture, and not overpowering. Behold a new favourite!

So here I am adding to the collective cheese knowlege of the internet I guess, and maybe a few will seek it out. More likely, its merit will be lost to the collective din.

Like Pan said, the real trick is to actively educate yourself. Is Shropshire Blue a tasty cheese because Fresnelly said so? How bold is bold? What does "wonderful texture" mean exactly?

__________________
Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

Ourcrazymodern?

roachboy might be a poet.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

GlobeTrvlr

"Fergalicious"
(feat. Will.I.Am)

Four, tres, two, uno

[Will I Am]
Listen up ya'll, 'cause this is it
The beat that I'm bangin' is de-li-cious

[Verse 1 - Fergie]
Fergalicious definition make them boys go loco
They want my treasure so they get their pleasures from my photo.
You could see me, you can't squeeze me.
I ain't easy, I ain't sleazy.
I got reasons why I tease 'em.
Boys just come and go like seasons.

[Hook 1]
Fergalicious (Fergalicious)
But I ain't promiscuous.
And if you was suspicious,
All that shit is fictitious.
I blow kisses (mmmwwahhh)
I put them boys on rock, rock.
And they be lining down the block just to watch what I got (four, tres, two, uno)

[Chorus]
So delicious (it's hot, hot)
So delicious (I put them boys on rock, rock)
So delicious (they wanna slice of what I got)
I'm Fergalicious (t-t-t-t-t-tasty, tasty)

[Verse 2]
Fergalicious def-,
Fergalicious def-,
Fergalicious def- ["def" is echoing]
Fergalicious definition make them boys go crazy.
They always claim they know me,
Comin' to me call me Stacy (Hey, Stacy),
I'm the F to the E, R, G, the I, the E,
And can't no other lady put it down like me.

[Hook 2]
I'm Fergalicious (so delicious)
My body stay vicious
I be up in the gym just working on my fitness
He's my witness (oooh, wee)
I put yo' boy on rock, rock
And he be lining down the block just to watch what I got (four, tres, two, uno)

[Chorus]
So delicious (it's hot, hot)
So delicious (I put them boys on rock, rock)
So delicious (they wanna slice of what I got)
Fergalicious (hold, hold, hold, hold, hold up, check it out)

[Vamp]
Baby, baby, baby,
If you really want me,
Honey get some patience.
Maybe then you'll get a taste.
I'll be tasty, tasty,
I'll be laced with lacey.
It's so tasty, tasty,
It'll make you crazy.

[Will I Am]
T to the A, to the S T E Y - girl, you're tasty, T to the A to the S T E Y - girl, you're tasty
D to the E, to the L I C I O U S, to the D, to the E, to the, to the, to the, hit it Fergie

[Rap - Fergie]
All the time I turn around brotha's gather round always looking at me up and down looking at my (uuhh)
I just wanna say it now - I ain't trying to round up drama, little mama I don't wanna take your man.
And I know I'm coming off just a little bit conceited and I keep on repeating how the boys wanna eat it.
But I'm tryin' to tell, that I can't be treated like clientele
'Cause they say she...

[Hook 3]
Delicious (so delicious)
But I ain't promiscuous
And if you was suspicious
All that shit is fictitious
I blow kisses (mmmwwahhh)
I put them boys on rock, rock
And they be lining down the block just to watch what I got (got, got, got)
Four, tres, two, uno.
My body stay vicious,
I be up in the gym just working on my fitness,
He's my witness (oooh, wee).
I put yo' boy on rock, rock,
And he be lining down the block just to watch what I got (four, tres, two, uno)

[Chorus]
So delicious (aye, aye, aye, aye)
So delicious (aye, aye, aye, aye)
So delicious (aye, aye, aye, aye)
I'm Fergalicious, t-t-t-t-t tasty, tasty

It's so delicious (aye, aye, aye, aye)
So delicious (aye, aye, aye, aye)
So delicious (aye, aye, aye, aye)
I'm Fergalicious, t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t (aye, aye, aye, aye)

[Will I Am]
T to the A, to the S T E Y - girl, you're tasty. T to the A, to the S T E Y - girl, you're tasty
T to the A, to the S T E Y - girl, you're tasty. T to the A, to the, to the (four, tres, two, uno)
D to the E, to the L I C I O U S, to the D, to the, E to the, L I C I O U S, to the
D to the E, to the L I C I O U S, to the D, to the E, to the, to the, to the (four, tres, two, uno)

T to the A, to the S T E Y - girl, you're tasty. T to the A, to the S T E Y - girl, you're tasty
T to the A, to the S T E Y - girl, you're tasty. T to the A, to the, four, tres, two, uno
D to the E, to the L I C I O U S, to the D, to the E, to the L I C I O U S, to the

Sharon

My problem with a lot of commercially-available professional opinion is that it is commercial. In a publication with advertisers, professional opinion can be bought, and I guess I am a cynic. Theoretically this could also be true of ordinary opinion, but the influence and reach of the professional reviewer, for instance, would certainly merit more attention from a marketer.

keyshawn

Pan, I agree that if you 'break out' (and research different options before making decisions) you will grow specifically improve your critical thinking skills (analyzing sources of information, determining what is subjective or objective, making connections between how someone's perspective can affect their opinion and actions; translating doublespeak (understanding different ways of articulating messages).
These qualities help people become a more informed person.
(and perhaps be a more satisfied person by recognizing the advertisement's attempts to convince you that a product will help you achieve a certain lifestyle or status).

However, there unfortunately comes a time when you rely upon others (whether being ordinary or expert people) for their opinions, or at the least, make your decision based on the limited amount of information you have and your intuition.

This is because of the finite resource: time (NO pun intended with the OP). Time is a finite resource for everyone, although some have more free time than other people. Ultimately then, people have to prioritize on what they want to spend their time researching and being educated about.

These priorities are vastly different for people and the internet reflects that. First starting with USENET, 'Ordinary' people have created and participated on websites, message boards, blogs, wikis devoted to the analysis of media - movies, music, books, and paintings, consumer products like mechanical pencils, pro wrestling, mp3 players or science like String Theory; religion; Politics of a certain geographic area, ideology, or relating to a single issue - like human rights or legalization of abortion and gay marriage.

For example, I've looked into purchasing a digital voice recorder for school. I visited a couple different retail stores where I disappointed in their limited selections and the fact only one store had the voice recorders available for a customer to use and demonstrate in the store.
I read reviews on websites and blogs [I could mention names, but that would also be advertising them, ] from ordinary peoples; read reviews from 'experts' (or people who get paid to write reviews on gadgets for a website). I also read information on the manufacteur's websites. Since I was on break from school, I had the time to spend hours reading different reviews, driving to different stores (In retrospect, I could have called the stores to see if they had working demonstrations), and determining which one would be the best for me.

However, I ultimately bought one without literally trying it out before buying it. I based this decision on my own intuition while taking into account the reviews (putting trust in reviews) that I had read.

People don't have the time (for various reasons for a different thread) to research and make an analysis of their decisions, so they use others' (from ordinary people and experts) opinions and reviews to help make their decisions.

catcha back on the flipside,
will.

PS - this post made me really cynical, when I realized that I had used the magazine's name multiple times in this post because it shares the name of an ubiquitous aspect of life.


(sorry if this is a bit of a threadjack, mods: feel free to move to its own post if you feel its necessary

__________________
currently reading:

currently playing :