4 ms·
I find it funny how you go from >This whole question really stems from a sad and pervasive tendency for 'intelligent' people to overestimate their general expe
by appearsonline 9y ago
I find it funny how you go from
>This whole question really stems from a sad and pervasive tendency for 'intelligent' people to overestimate their general expertise
to
>Within a community, individuals should only be judged based on their contributions and value within that community.
and then justify that with
>Everyone is not expected to be right, or agreeable, about everything, with everyone else. Aiming for this is pointless.
I'm not sure you agree with yourself.
- cs1717p 9y agoI'm not sure what your point is. Can you clarify what you're trying to get at here?
- lucisferre 9y agoI think basically he is saying there is a bit of a dichotomy in stating that communities overestimate their abilities to apply value judgements and then at the same time state that they should only judge people based on their contributions and value to that community. As much as you might like, you can't really separate some specific technical ideal of "value" or "contribution" from a person's actions on the whole. People are people, and communities are collections of people with human interactions and interpersonal relationships. I'll also add that the false equivalence between excluding Allan Turning because he was gay vs. excluding people who express homophobic attitudes because they want to exclude people who are gay is just another way of stating "in order to embrace tolerance we must be tolerant of intolerance". Can we all finally accept that for the fallacy that it is?
- cs1717p 9y agoWithin a given group value is reasonably correlated to expertise. As much as I wouldn't give any time to sociologists valuing Alan Turings genius within mathematics, computer science, etc., I'd have equally little time for mathematicians judging his sexuality.