3 ms·

I just want to be clear... Are you implying that the author doesn't understand the difference between different measures of central tendency?

by zorak 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mcphage 9y ago
> Are you implying that the author [a PhD candidate in neuroscience] doesn't understand the difference between different measures of central tendency? They probably are. There's this tendency in geek circles to assume that someone—especially an expert in another field—doesn't know what they're talking about unless they spell it out in such excruciating detail that those geeks (who actually don't know what they're talking about) can follow along as well. I don't know why it is, and it's frustrating as hell. It seems like it's related to the Principle of Charity, but I don't know if it's the same thing, or just a similar thing.
- smrxx 9y ago
  It's called the Dunning-Krueger effect. I'm not trying to be silly. The geek you describe thinks his ability in this area is better than it is.
  - mcphage 9y ago
    Hmm. Maybe? I don't think that's quite it, either—or at least, that aspect of it doesn't bother me as much. If this type of geek thinks that they're really good in some area that they have no knowledge of, that's silly, but what bothers me more is the assumption that the people who are experts don't know anything. They're related, definitely. But I object more to the tearing-other-people-down, rather than the building-themselves-up. Like the users above who assume that the author, a PhD candidate in neuroscience, is unaware of the difference between mean and median. Did they explicitly mention which they meant? No, of course not—it's clear from the context which was meant, and to explicitly spell it out would be insulting to the readers. Yet we have readers here who take that omission to mean that the author doesn't even understand the difference. I see it all the time when a person writes about a problem in their field, and then armchair quarterbacks here confidently state their 5 minutes of thought about it as if it were a novel idea. So sure, there's some Dunning-Kruger in there, but there's also a corresponding assumption that author didn't think of the solutions you get from 5 minutes of thought about the problem. "Why didn't they just consider X!" Well duh—of course they did, because that's obvious.
- zorak 9y ago
  Glad to read this. I thought I might be the only one picking up on the irony here. I mean, come on. He JUST read about D-K, then demonstrates it in action.
  - mcphage 9y ago
    I agree, although as I said to another commenter, I'm more bothered by assuming others to be incompetent even though they are, than I am by assuming yourself to be competent when you're not. And they're related, but not quite the same?

I just want to be clear... Are you implying that the author doesn't understand the difference between different measures of central tendency?

by zorak 9y ago

I just want to be clear... Are you implying that the author doesn't understand the difference between different measures of central tendency?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mcphage 9y ago

> Are you implying that the author [a PhD candidate in neuroscience] doesn't understand the difference between different measures of central tendency? They probably are. There's this tendency in geek circles to assume that someone—especially an expert in another field—doesn't know what they're talking about unless they spell it out in such excruciating detail that those geeks (who actually don't know what they're talking about) can follow along as well. I don't know why it is, and it's frustrating as hell. It seems like it's related to the Principle of Charity, but I don't know if it's the same thing, or just a similar thing.

smrxx 9y ago
It's called the Dunning-Krueger effect. I'm not trying to be silly. The geek you describe thinks his ability in this area is better than it is.
- mcphage 9y ago
  Hmm. Maybe? I don't think that's quite it, either—or at least, that aspect of it doesn't bother me as much. If this type of geek thinks that they're really good in some area that they have no knowledge of, that's silly, but what bothers me more is the assumption that the people who are experts don't know anything. They're related, definitely. But I object more to the tearing-other-people-down, rather than the building-themselves-up. Like the users above who assume that the author, a PhD candidate in neuroscience, is unaware of the difference between mean and median. Did they explicitly mention which they meant? No, of course not—it's clear from the context which was meant, and to explicitly spell it out would be insulting to the readers. Yet we have readers here who take that omission to mean that the author doesn't even understand the difference. I see it all the time when a person writes about a problem in their field, and then armchair quarterbacks here confidently state their 5 minutes of thought about it as if it were a novel idea. So sure, there's some Dunning-Kruger in there, but there's also a corresponding assumption that author didn't think of the solutions you get from 5 minutes of thought about the problem. "Why didn't they just consider X!" Well duh—of course they did, because that's obvious.
zorak 9y ago
Glad to read this. I thought I might be the only one picking up on the irony here. I mean, come on. He JUST read about D-K, then demonstrates it in action.
- mcphage 9y ago
  I agree, although as I said to another commenter, I'm more bothered by assuming others to be incompetent even though they are, than I am by assuming yourself to be competent when you're not. And they're related, but not quite the same?