3 ms·

"I don't know..." is not a real qualification. Qualifying things also means working at doing proper qualifications. "I read a comparison of library X and Y a wh

"I don't know..." is not a real qualification. Qualifying things also means working at doing proper qualifications. "I read a comparison of library X and Y a while ago that stated (qualification) library X is bloated to library Y, so we should investigate that before making a decision as too which one to use" It is a great point that people don't qualify because it makes them sound less confident, and people that sound more confident end up being more convincing to most people. So there is a cultural problem there (hopefully confidence does not sway a scientific group). Cultural problems are tough- to maintain your stance you have to try to change the culture (sometimes impossible) or move to a different culture. But you can change the culture a little by asking "where did you read that?", or "so you have used/did that yourself?". Obviously you have to do this in a way that doesn't annoy. You have to work at finding the middle road between qualifying and giving an impression of relative confidence. Let me qualify this by saying these are just what comes to my mind on this issue. I would very much appreciate the pragmatic advice of others on this concept.

binspace 16y ago
> So there is a cultural problem there (hopefully confidence does not sway a scientific group) Isn't this the norm though? Given all things equal, it's been my experience that people who make quick and strong judgement tend to have more control over a social situation. Of course somebody who is wrong often will have less reputation. However, being wrong is not always bad, especially if it leads to further thought and exploration to find the truth and the person is willing to change one proven wrong. > It is a great point that people don't qualify because it makes them sound less confident, and people that sound more confident end up being more convincing to most people. Your qualification about reading the comparison instill confidence on the rest of the statement. Maybe it's the self-deprecating qualifications that should be avoided... > You have to work at finding the middle road between qualifying and giving an impression of relative confidence. True. --- Some meta thoughts. I would have to expend lots of energy and time to be able to properly qualify some of my statements. I find the time/accuracy trade-off to skew toward time, here, with the hopes that a well educated and astute crowd (such as HN commenters), can point any flaws or provide validation to my statements.

binspace 16y ago

> So there is a cultural problem there (hopefully confidence does not sway a scientific group) Isn't this the norm though? Given all things equal, it's been my experience that people who make quick and strong judgement tend to have more control over a social situation. Of course somebody who is wrong often will have less reputation. However, being wrong is not always bad, especially if it leads to further thought and exploration to find the truth and the person is willing to change one proven wrong. > It is a great point that people don't qualify because it makes them sound less confident, and people that sound more confident end up being more convincing to most people. Your qualification about reading the comparison instill confidence on the rest of the statement. Maybe it's the self-deprecating qualifications that should be avoided... > You have to work at finding the middle road between qualifying and giving an impression of relative confidence. True. --- Some meta thoughts. I would have to expend lots of energy and time to be able to properly qualify some of my statements. I find the time/accuracy trade-off to skew toward time, here, with the hopes that a well educated and astute crowd (such as HN commenters), can point any flaws or provide validation to my statements.