It’s not as bad as you think. In the scientific and medical communities, they’ll have reason enough for their own cynicism over people who “do their own research”.

Here on HN there may be a number of polymaths or professionals who actually can dig up or create good research on most or all topics. But for all the people for whom “do your own research” is “follow these rabbit holes on Youtube”, well… You don’t want to discourage people from good faith effort, but it’s not wrong to let people know that it takes a lot, probably more thatn they think, to get well-informed on a scientific topic.

I agree its tone is sort of “leave it to the experts”. It’s inveighing against the following:

> when someone says they’re “doing their own research,” they mean using a search engine to find information that confirms what they already think is true.

Naturally, if you are an expert in one or more fields, you might reasonably come away feeling the author isn’t talking to you.

It's true though. I'm a professional with many years of experience in a tough field.

People who "do their own research" are terrifying. If my field were lumberjacking, this is how the conversations would go:

"I want to chop that tree down and gets its wood."

"That is not a tree, sir, that is a painting of a tree. You can't get lumber from a painting of a tree."

"You're wrong, I researched the definition of a tree. That thing clearly stands tall, with bark and limbs and leaves. It's a tree."

"It's a two dimensional painting of a tree on canvas. It is not a tree."

[Chops valuable painting to pieces, gets worthless wood from frame] "I told you it was a tree. This is why no one needs you."

You can do your own research. Only on a few things, though, because really doing it takes a lot of time. You can't do your own research on everything.

And the article is at least partly right. Many (most?) people, when they "do their own research", are exactly trying to confirm their prejudices.

The post will never reach those it is about, and it insults those it speaks to. It only reaches those who think it is about someone else. It's a long subtweet catering to a sanctimonious ingroup.

I sure didn't.

I believe you, and can see how it looks like I implied it was you, but that wasn't my intention.

Nah, I didn't think so. Just wanted to make it clear that a harsh critic can be against shutting down the object of the criticism.

If you can't have your own ideas then voting is pointless.

Lol, have you met most people?

Just the fact that you felt compelled to submit such an obvious critique, and came across as defensive even beyond that compulsion, leads me to suggest you might want to examine your own beliefs some more. Beliefs in multiple areas.

This post does very, very little to dissuade me that the underlying attitude of the OP is glib cynicism.