3 ms·

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

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.
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    >>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. This is not unusual. Experts know how to recognize patterns quickly because they have lots of training and experience to do it. If a dentist looks at an x-ray and sees what looks like rotting tooth root, he or she will recommend taking out that tooth, and the chances are very, very good that he or she is right. >>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. What happened is that your dentist informed you that leaving the tooth in would be very risky because it could lead to a much more serious condition and require major surgery such as a root canal. You decided to take that risk (or circumstances forced you to) and got lucky and nothing bad happened. This doesn't mean that the dentist was wrong.

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.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  >>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. This is not unusual. Experts know how to recognize patterns quickly because they have lots of training and experience to do it. If a dentist looks at an x-ray and sees what looks like rotting tooth root, he or she will recommend taking out that tooth, and the chances are very, very good that he or she is right. >>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. What happened is that your dentist informed you that leaving the tooth in would be very risky because it could lead to a much more serious condition and require major surgery such as a root canal. You decided to take that risk (or circumstances forced you to) and got lucky and nothing bad happened. This doesn't mean that the dentist was wrong.