3 ms·

I don't buy this headline at all, the author does not prove there are actual experts behind this story at all... The primary story used here is that a sagging

I don't buy this headline at all, the author does not prove there are actual experts behind this story at all... The primary story used here is that a sagging arena roof was consistently deemed safe by "engineers" (no proof of expertise provided) based upon their calculations...and this is somehow a "dark side" of expertise? It reads much more like ineptitude; that'd be like any coder here constantly ignoring terrible performance and numerous bugs and claiming their architecture is just fine.

mjw1007 7y ago
There's also an unexplained leap from "the calculations are correct" to "we should proceed as planned even though it's sagging when it shouldn't". Even if the engineers were infinitely arrogant and assumed nothing could possibly be wrong with the design, you'd expect them to react by saying "you must be building it wrong or using substandard materials", or something.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  This is the same annoying problem I found with Malcolm Gladwell's Blink. He draws this conclusion that we can trust our first impressions, but it's really unclear how he comes to that conclusion: some of his evidence comes to no conclusion, and some of it directly contradicts that conclusion.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  I'm starting to think someone was misled by their expertise into thinking this article was any good.