I am writing about what will take its proper place in the series named here Apocalypse of the intellect, not necessarily losing the moment of the recent past, but individualizing/autonomizing the matter. Because it really is a new form of study/research, a discipline and a specialization that I fear will soon disappear. So, a newly born discipline that is on the verge of becoming honorable, but as of yesterday/today is seriously compromised, suspect, and therefore under threat, perhaps even intended (= forced) to disappear.

Now to some (and especially to others) it would seem honorable that I also went online, gathered from several sources (books and studies published in the last 10-15 years) and made an introduction as possibly (supposedly) scholarly. (Because yes, quoting sources without reading/consulting them, getting information and references from dozens of other people’s statements, quotes, imitations, or just empty references is acceptable.) But I don’t waste my time on it, because I don’t despise fake as much equal physical and ethical ease with which so many (as if more and more) “colleagues from the academy” (someone’s words) inflate the bibliographic list and put parentheses in the text (or in the names of footnotes). /headings and even pages) summarizing serious work in a simple sentence or simplistic statement, clearly clumsy/unthought out but easily clipped.

Regarding netnography, I came across several texts (from different sources/origins/countries and epistemic backgrounds) that presented the “new discipline” in a suspiciously similar way, with slightly different terminological expressions but identical in meaning (+ parentheses from the names of the same authors, respectively, links to articles, with years and page numbering). In order to then demonstrate or expose one’s own “case” (or personal experience) of inferior, even childish manners compared to the preceding superior phraseology – thus obviously taken/copied from elsewhere, i.e. “from one to another”. Unaccepted folklore, collective and oral dissemination, all achieved by a simple quasi-fabulous search for “data”, actually ideas, information and formulations, knowledge reduced to incorrectly or superficially assimilated knowledge.

For a basic overview, let’s say that in the “human sciences” and “cultural studies” (such as anthropology, sociology, philology, ethnography, ethnology), surveys and questionnaires or “fieldwork” found in fitecu online exhibits average equally good/perfect and very easily available for extraction, evaluation, systematization, interpretation. Thoughts and thinking, attitudes and ideas, levels of politeness and aggression, the world of displayed emotions and influence or manipulation, all and many such aspects have become easy to study without moving from the chair, without traveling, without begging and spending, without interacting with people in to the body, without many (and) trifles. Here is this one new ethnography (description/ethnography of words, ideological objects, attitudes, gestures, facts, difficulties), even with claims, desires, sometimes skills ethnologywas named netnography. That is, online research and intellectual and academic processing. For some time, it will be an ethical and even legal obligation to ask permission from the authors of the sites to refer to their luminaries and process/use the information obtained by them. After declaring all social (“socializing”) sites as public domain/space, you can mine, comment, systematize and publish freely, without any deontological or legal formalities (copyright). The problem is that software and bots can do this precisely and perfectly, the author and “scholarship” of this kind no longer needs an island that searches (empirically and at length), structures and systematizes the vast material, extracts samples and issues comments / interpretations and epistemologically relevant conclusions, that is, from a point of view LABOR purely intellectually human. This kind of work is done by AI much faster and possibly better than an individual human being, so it is perfectly normal to ask if there is no need at all for this type of human learning, research, work, purely/effectively personalistic scientific discipline.

Police thoughts and words (these radio angels, guardians of national and individual safety and security) and metrologists (these radiating mercenologists to absolute formality and ridiculousness, because they evaluate genius, quality, squareness and pseudo-quality with the simplest apparatus. in culture, art, science, but pompously call self-proclaimed metro scientists) engage in excessive (almost exclusively) networking (sometimes deserving of being named after English speakers herbology or garbage science), i.e. internet scrubbing and tracking. Well, most of the time they don’t even do that, but simply accept, sort and store rudimentary (meta)data provided by authors, journals and publishers, thus keeping a mechanical record just as (if not worse) than the sleeveless clerks of ages past. . Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro