5 ms·

On the other hand, if what the rando is saying is true, nothing else matters, and their words should be judged on their own merits. The question is, is it true

On the other hand, if what the rando is saying is true, nothing else matters, and their words should be judged on their own merits. The question is, is it true?

threatofrain 9y ago
Words ought not be judged solely on their truthiness independent of their person. Evaluating someone's argument is costly, which is why some technical communities might consider the reputation of the author before embarking on the serious task of understanding a complex theory. HN does offer higher-than-usual quality of discussion, but its ability to discuss is still palpably limited. In this light, waiting for the right starting point of discussion can be productive. A lot of debates are tiresome because they seem to start back from ground 0, and it can wear down community enthusiasm for the subject.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  I don't agree. In fact, this is an extremely interesting topic worthy of a separate essay, so that hopefully this can be refuted once and for all. You'll find it difficult (but not impossible) to figure out who I am. And I like it that way. Not because I'm particularly scared of anything, but because merit alone should be our filter. This is further exemplified by the classism present in the current society. If you haven't gone through the right funnel, if you haven't been born to the right parents, if you merely got unlucky and your family's fortune was stolen or squandered, then suddenly you are unworthy of being listened to. Right? That's what you're saying by "Words ought not be judged solely on their truthiness independent of their person." Either you're somebody, or you're nobody. And if you're nobody then you may as well go die. That is quite dramatic, but not quite overly so. It's how companies feel about their employees when they fire them, for example. In fact, follow this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15792258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15792258 Just start at the top and keep reading. It's an absolutely fascinating debate, and one of the sides is completely anonymous. I still don't know how to feel about the situation. Both sides bring up good points. But such quality came out of letting merit alone be the judge. And people will disagree whether it's quality, but it certainly made me think.
  - threatofrain 9y ago
    > Right? That's what you're saying by "Words ought not be judged solely on their truthiness independent of their person." Either you're somebody, or you're nobody. And if you're nobody then you may as well go die. Is that your interpretation? No, if words aren't judged solely, that implies at least, I don't know, one, or can I get two extra factors? What's wrong with multi-factor judgment? For example, when I listen to my doctor, do you think I'm only evaluating the merit of the medical reasoning? Are doctors in the habit or routine of providing their medical reasoning? And surely, while not all doctors are from good financial backgrounds, just by being so prejudiced in favor of your doctor, you are judging the final accumulated product of an unfair system, and you are probably enjoying its fruits. The reality is you probably also evaluate multiple signals, every day, even if one of those signals is correlated with a class division you despise.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      Ah, excellent reply. This is what makes HN worth savoring. You certainly have a point. And I would agree that in medical matters, or in other situations where an expert opinion is warranted, it's worth taking credentialism into account. But there are a few people on HN without credentials who are excellent programmers. What makes them excellent? If you had to figure out a hard design, or build something quickly (as opposed to rock-solid reliably), are you sure the first person you'd go to is a Harvard grad? Even if you had the money. I've met enough to know that they're smart, but you can get within a stone's throw of their skill on your own. Let's start with a story. My tooth hurt, for days. Terrible shooting pain. I remember waking up and jumping up and down crying due to how absolutely excruciating it was. This isn't artistic exaggeration. I go to the dentist. Tooth's godda come out. But what made me hesitate was how quickly this determination was made. She took one glance at the xray and said "This tooth needs to be extracted." Instantly. I go home and wait, and bear the pain a bit. The pain goes away, and I forget about it for awhile. A few months later, it comes back. I go to a different dentist. Same exact situation. For lucky reasons, I could not arrange the operation. I say "lucky" because I still have that tooth, and that was four years ago. If I had listened to credentials, I would be one less tooth and none the wiser. This was quite striking, and it has always made me wonder why we have this absolute faith in the systems we participate in. It works most of the time. It's a pretty good rule of thumb. But the special cases are what makes life interesting, and most systems are remarkably bad at evaluating those. What does all of this have to do with whether some rando should have an opinion about Google? Well, that rando might be right. And the only way to figure that out is to think about it and decide for yourself.
- mLuby 9y ago
  Arguing a debate from 0 to its conclusion is tiresome, but it can be short-circuited simply by explaining how this instance of the debate is the same as previous discussions, and (literally) linking to previous debates. In this way, it's similar to how many disparate problems are reducible to the Travelling Salesman Problem. Once that reduction is discovered, the line of inquiry rapidly converges with those of other TSP investigations. It's valuable to do so to bring others up to speed cheaply, and to avoid getting stuck on credentialism's local maximum.
  - wav-part 9y ago
    > Arguing a debate from 0 to its conclusion is tiresome Irrelevent. If you accept a statement without proof, you become vulnerable to manipulation. This is also why topic-specific forums exist, so that short proof suffices. Though I dont know an appropriate forum for this article.
    - threatofrain 9y ago
      When you listen to your doctor, or your lawyer, you become vulnerable to manipulation. You are indeed rolling the die, like a high roller of Vegas.
      - wav-part 9y ago
        Technically you are correct. You must also educate yourself. Get mutiple opinions etc. Hopefully you picked your doctor due to his past performence. Money and review should serve as a good incentive.
- mike741 9y ago
  "Words ought not be judged solely on their truthiness independent of their person." Ok... so who are you? Since I don't know you, I can't judge your statement with any respect to you, so your statement cannot be considered true, so why say it? Truth is quite obviously the sole standard a statement should be judged by. If you give up on the analysis and are looking for a shortcut, then that is something else entirely. Our "ability to discuss" is hampered when your opening statement is self-evidently false circular reasoning.
  - wav-part 9y ago
    If you give a statement with proof that can be confirmed in short time then reputation is irrelevent. Otherwise I am not going to spend time to think about provability of your statement, unless you are reputable or I trust you. So Reputation does not imply a statement. Reputation is only used to reduce ddos on my brain. Ironically Headline/Article basically suggest to accept it as truth because reputation.

On the other hand, if what the rando is saying is true, nothing else matters, and their words should be judged on their own merits. The question is, is it true?

threatofrain 9y ago

Words ought not be judged solely on their truthiness independent of their person. Evaluating someone's argument is costly, which is why some technical communities might consider the reputation of the author before embarking on the serious task of understanding a complex theory. HN does offer higher-than-usual quality of discussion, but its ability to discuss is still palpably limited. In this light, waiting for the right starting point of discussion can be productive. A lot of debates are tiresome because they seem to start back from ground 0, and it can wear down community enthusiasm for the subject.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
I don't agree. In fact, this is an extremely interesting topic worthy of a separate essay, so that hopefully this can be refuted once and for all. You'll find it difficult (but not impossible) to figure out who I am. And I like it that way. Not because I'm particularly scared of anything, but because merit alone should be our filter. This is further exemplified by the classism present in the current society. If you haven't gone through the right funnel, if you haven't been born to the right parents, if you merely got unlucky and your family's fortune was stolen or squandered, then suddenly you are unworthy of being listened to. Right? That's what you're saying by "Words ought not be judged solely on their truthiness independent of their person." Either you're somebody, or you're nobody. And if you're nobody then you may as well go die. That is quite dramatic, but not quite overly so. It's how companies feel about their employees when they fire them, for example. In fact, follow this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15792258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15792258 Just start at the top and keep reading. It's an absolutely fascinating debate, and one of the sides is completely anonymous. I still don't know how to feel about the situation. Both sides bring up good points. But such quality came out of letting merit alone be the judge. And people will disagree whether it's quality, but it certainly made me think.
- threatofrain 9y ago
  > Right? That's what you're saying by "Words ought not be judged solely on their truthiness independent of their person." Either you're somebody, or you're nobody. And if you're nobody then you may as well go die. Is that your interpretation? No, if words aren't judged solely, that implies at least, I don't know, one, or can I get two extra factors? What's wrong with multi-factor judgment? For example, when I listen to my doctor, do you think I'm only evaluating the merit of the medical reasoning? Are doctors in the habit or routine of providing their medical reasoning? And surely, while not all doctors are from good financial backgrounds, just by being so prejudiced in favor of your doctor, you are judging the final accumulated product of an unfair system, and you are probably enjoying its fruits. The reality is you probably also evaluate multiple signals, every day, even if one of those signals is correlated with a class division you despise.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Ah, excellent reply. This is what makes HN worth savoring. You certainly have a point. And I would agree that in medical matters, or in other situations where an expert opinion is warranted, it's worth taking credentialism into account. But there are a few people on HN without credentials who are excellent programmers. What makes them excellent? If you had to figure out a hard design, or build something quickly (as opposed to rock-solid reliably), are you sure the first person you'd go to is a Harvard grad? Even if you had the money. I've met enough to know that they're smart, but you can get within a stone's throw of their skill on your own. Let's start with a story. My tooth hurt, for days. Terrible shooting pain. I remember waking up and jumping up and down crying due to how absolutely excruciating it was. This isn't artistic exaggeration. I go to the dentist. Tooth's godda come out. But what made me hesitate was how quickly this determination was made. She took one glance at the xray and said "This tooth needs to be extracted." Instantly. I go home and wait, and bear the pain a bit. The pain goes away, and I forget about it for awhile. A few months later, it comes back. I go to a different dentist. Same exact situation. For lucky reasons, I could not arrange the operation. I say "lucky" because I still have that tooth, and that was four years ago. If I had listened to credentials, I would be one less tooth and none the wiser. This was quite striking, and it has always made me wonder why we have this absolute faith in the systems we participate in. It works most of the time. It's a pretty good rule of thumb. But the special cases are what makes life interesting, and most systems are remarkably bad at evaluating those. What does all of this have to do with whether some rando should have an opinion about Google? Well, that rando might be right. And the only way to figure that out is to think about it and decide for yourself.
mLuby 9y ago
Arguing a debate from 0 to its conclusion is tiresome, but it can be short-circuited simply by explaining how this instance of the debate is the same as previous discussions, and (literally) linking to previous debates. In this way, it's similar to how many disparate problems are reducible to the Travelling Salesman Problem. Once that reduction is discovered, the line of inquiry rapidly converges with those of other TSP investigations. It's valuable to do so to bring others up to speed cheaply, and to avoid getting stuck on credentialism's local maximum.
- wav-part 9y ago
  > Arguing a debate from 0 to its conclusion is tiresome Irrelevent. If you accept a statement without proof, you become vulnerable to manipulation. This is also why topic-specific forums exist, so that short proof suffices. Though I dont know an appropriate forum for this article.
  - threatofrain 9y ago
    When you listen to your doctor, or your lawyer, you become vulnerable to manipulation. You are indeed rolling the die, like a high roller of Vegas.
    - wav-part 9y ago
      Technically you are correct. You must also educate yourself. Get mutiple opinions etc. Hopefully you picked your doctor due to his past performence. Money and review should serve as a good incentive.
mike741 9y ago
"Words ought not be judged solely on their truthiness independent of their person." Ok... so who are you? Since I don't know you, I can't judge your statement with any respect to you, so your statement cannot be considered true, so why say it? Truth is quite obviously the sole standard a statement should be judged by. If you give up on the analysis and are looking for a shortcut, then that is something else entirely. Our "ability to discuss" is hampered when your opening statement is self-evidently false circular reasoning.
- wav-part 9y ago
  If you give a statement with proof that can be confirmed in short time then reputation is irrelevent. Otherwise I am not going to spend time to think about provability of your statement, unless you are reputable or I trust you. So Reputation does not imply a statement. Reputation is only used to reduce ddos on my brain. Ironically Headline/Article basically suggest to accept it as truth because reputation.