4 ms·

20 years of individual experience does not give you nearly as much data as "a bunch of studies and statistics". Being glib about the scientific method doesn't m

by ouid 9y ago

20 years of individual experience does not give you nearly as much data as "a bunch of studies and statistics". Being glib about the scientific method doesn't make you better than it.

crucini 9y ago
Adam just raised seed funding to build the next great mobile app. He needs a high performance back end which will support rapid iteration. He looks at two candidates for tech lead: Bob has 20 years experience in server software development and led the back-end development at a previous mobile startup. Charlie is an econ PHD from Yale and has many statistics at his fingertips about software development. He has never written any software. Who should Adam hire?
- ouid 9y ago
  These scenarios are not analogous.
- ZephyrP 9y ago
  I think there is something deeply funny about reading a discussion on how someone else is an "Intellectual Yet Idiot" and then watching them immediately turn it around with a bizarre seed-funding analogy (you might even say an apples/oranges comparison!)
ktRolster 9y ago
Those with 20 years of experience have "a bunch of studies and statistics" too. They are better equipped to interpret the data.
- ouid 9y ago
  interpreting data is not part of the mandatory skillset of LEOs
  - ktRolster 9y ago
    Trying to build programs without real-world experience causes problems. And real-world experience isn't part of the mandatory skillset of those who interpret data. Let me give you a clear, humorous example of something real-world experience will give you that studies will not: http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.long http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.long
    - ouid 9y ago
      Real world experience is not the thing that gets you to put on a parachute when jumping out of a plane. Parachutes weren't invented by people jumping out of planes with different things strapped to their backs until they found something that worked. They built thing and changed them and then tested those changes by building/testing wind tunnels. My god the amount of effort it must have taken to develop a way of packing a parachute so that it would open reliably must have been enormous. On the other hand anyone with nothing but real world experience jumping out of airplanes with parachutes on would say, from experience, that parachutes are 100% safe. Someone could easily come along and develop a much safer parachute, and get zero adoption from the people with "real world experience" who assume that their experience is unbiased and sufficiently powerful to be representative. The quantitative model is the only force by which humans reason. Anything that you can't model is merely happening to you, and that's what you hold in high esteem?
      - ktRolster 9y ago
        So what you are saying is that human experience is worthless? Is that really a position you want to commit to? Or are you willing to admit that practical experience has some value?

by ouid 9y ago

20 years of individual experience does not give you nearly as much data as "a bunch of studies and statistics". Being glib about the scientific method doesn't make you better than it.

crucini 9y ago

Adam just raised seed funding to build the next great mobile app. He needs a high performance back end which will support rapid iteration. He looks at two candidates for tech lead: Bob has 20 years experience in server software development and led the back-end development at a previous mobile startup. Charlie is an econ PHD from Yale and has many statistics at his fingertips about software development. He has never written any software. Who should Adam hire?

ouid 9y ago
These scenarios are not analogous.
ZephyrP 9y ago
I think there is something deeply funny about reading a discussion on how someone else is an "Intellectual Yet Idiot" and then watching them immediately turn it around with a bizarre seed-funding analogy (you might even say an apples/oranges comparison!)

ktRolster 9y ago

Those with 20 years of experience have "a bunch of studies and statistics" too. They are better equipped to interpret the data.

ouid 9y ago
interpreting data is not part of the mandatory skillset of LEOs
- ktRolster 9y ago
  Trying to build programs without real-world experience causes problems. And real-world experience isn't part of the mandatory skillset of those who interpret data. Let me give you a clear, humorous example of something real-world experience will give you that studies will not: http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.long http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.long
  - ouid 9y ago
    Real world experience is not the thing that gets you to put on a parachute when jumping out of a plane. Parachutes weren't invented by people jumping out of planes with different things strapped to their backs until they found something that worked. They built thing and changed them and then tested those changes by building/testing wind tunnels. My god the amount of effort it must have taken to develop a way of packing a parachute so that it would open reliably must have been enormous. On the other hand anyone with nothing but real world experience jumping out of airplanes with parachutes on would say, from experience, that parachutes are 100% safe. Someone could easily come along and develop a much safer parachute, and get zero adoption from the people with "real world experience" who assume that their experience is unbiased and sufficiently powerful to be representative. The quantitative model is the only force by which humans reason. Anything that you can't model is merely happening to you, and that's what you hold in high esteem?
    - ktRolster 9y ago
      So what you are saying is that human experience is worthless? Is that really a position you want to commit to? Or are you willing to admit that practical experience has some value?