Forwarded from Wakingup1984
How to Do Good Research
(A simple guide for anyone trying to figure out what’s true)
1. Start with a real question.
Don’t chase conclusions. Know what you’re actually asking.
2. Go to primary sources first.
Primary source documents are king.
Original documents. Firsthand accounts. Records. Data.
If the claim doesn’t trace back to something real, ignore it.
3. Use secondary sources that cite evidence.
Skip YouTubers, bloggers, and influencers who don’t show sources.
4. Look at all sides.
Winners, losers, outsiders, critics.
If you only read one angle, you don’t have the full story and your conclusion will be faulty.
5. Ask “How do they know this?”
Good sources explain their method and provide references.
Bad sources rely on vibes, emotion, or authority.
6. Follow every claim back to its origin.
No clear source = low credibility.
7. Watch for bias.
Cherry-picking, selective quoting, or ignoring counter-evidence are red flags.
8. Don’t fall in love with the first answer.
If it fits your worldview too perfectly, look again. Question yourself. Check your premises.
9. Keep track of what you find.
Write down sources. It prevents spreading bad info. Share references and links if possible.
10. Build your conclusion last.
Evidence first. Interpretation second.
(A simple guide for anyone trying to figure out what’s true)
1. Start with a real question.
Don’t chase conclusions. Know what you’re actually asking.
2. Go to primary sources first.
Primary source documents are king.
Original documents. Firsthand accounts. Records. Data.
If the claim doesn’t trace back to something real, ignore it.
3. Use secondary sources that cite evidence.
Skip YouTubers, bloggers, and influencers who don’t show sources.
4. Look at all sides.
Winners, losers, outsiders, critics.
If you only read one angle, you don’t have the full story and your conclusion will be faulty.
5. Ask “How do they know this?”
Good sources explain their method and provide references.
Bad sources rely on vibes, emotion, or authority.
6. Follow every claim back to its origin.
No clear source = low credibility.
7. Watch for bias.
Cherry-picking, selective quoting, or ignoring counter-evidence are red flags.
8. Don’t fall in love with the first answer.
If it fits your worldview too perfectly, look again. Question yourself. Check your premises.
9. Keep track of what you find.
Write down sources. It prevents spreading bad info. Share references and links if possible.
10. Build your conclusion last.
Evidence first. Interpretation second.
👍7🌭1
Forwarded from Wakingup1984
The_essential_guide_to_doing_research.pdf
1.2 MB
O’Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. SAGE Publications.
Zina O’Leary’s The Essential Guide to Doing Research introduces the core skills needed to plan and conduct research. The book explains how to form clear questions, evaluate sources, gather evidence, and build sound arguments. O’Leary stresses critical thinking, credibility, and methodological transparency, giving beginners practical tools to approach research with rigor and clarity.
Zina O’Leary’s The Essential Guide to Doing Research introduces the core skills needed to plan and conduct research. The book explains how to form clear questions, evaluate sources, gather evidence, and build sound arguments. O’Leary stresses critical thinking, credibility, and methodological transparency, giving beginners practical tools to approach research with rigor and clarity.
👍3
Forwarded from Wakingup1984
Krause, R. E. (1949). Racial characteristics and fighting capacity of the German. Proceedings, 75(12), 1351–1356. U.S. Naval Institute. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1949/december/racial-characteristics-and-fighting-capacity-german
The 1949 article examines how Germany’s historical, cultural, and what the author calls racial traits shaped its military behavior. Krause argues that Germans were never a single unified racial group but a collection of tribes and regional populations with different temperaments and traditions. This long-standing fragmentation, he says, influenced their military performance.
Local units tended to be highly disciplined and cohesive, with strong obedience to authority and the capacity to endure hardship. These strengths, however, did not translate into stable national unity. Krause emphasizes that German military effectiveness often depended on strong leadership, and when leadership collapsed, weaknesses such as rigidity, disunity, and poor strategic coordination appeared.
The 1949 article examines how Germany’s historical, cultural, and what the author calls racial traits shaped its military behavior. Krause argues that Germans were never a single unified racial group but a collection of tribes and regional populations with different temperaments and traditions. This long-standing fragmentation, he says, influenced their military performance.
Local units tended to be highly disciplined and cohesive, with strong obedience to authority and the capacity to endure hardship. These strengths, however, did not translate into stable national unity. Krause emphasizes that German military effectiveness often depended on strong leadership, and when leadership collapsed, weaknesses such as rigidity, disunity, and poor strategic coordination appeared.
🤔1
Forwarded from 🅲🅾🆁🅽🅿🅾🅿 🅼🅴🅼🅴🆂
Mi name is Corneda. Me runs wib a biker gang in Neo Tokyo. My fren is part of a government project, which makes him a glowie benis in mi books
❤2