7 ms·

I have no directly relevant credentials whatsoever and don't claim to. (I actually considered saying as such in the writeup but it's already so verbose that I f

I have no directly relevant credentials whatsoever and don't claim to. (I actually considered saying as such in the writeup but it's already so verbose that I felt it wasn't worth it). I'm just a dude that likes to read research papers. As an aside, there is totally an archetype of the software engineer that thinks they're equipped to dive into unrelated fields, and I definitely match that trope. I will say in my defense though, that I try to build simple mental models and take them to their logical conclusion, which is a quality that I see in people I admire, and conversely a quality that I find lacking in people that I feel don't have a lot of insight. Many might disagree but I am a very strong believer that arguments should be evaluated on their merits, rather than credentials. Indeed having credentials makes it that much easier to fall prey to cognitive distortions.

meheleventyone 6y ago
> I have no directly relevant credentials whatsoever and don't claim to. IMO this should be a disclaimer in bold right at the very top of the article.
- ryankemper 6y ago
  Done. https://gitlab.com/ryankemper/writings/-/commit/05b4b616c5e0017b0f80682533399c8696d897b5 https://gitlab.com/ryankemper/writings/-/commit/05b4b616c5e0...
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    Thanks, it’s a good commitment to representing your argument clearly and does you credit.
ryanwaggoner 6y ago
I have no directly relevant credentials whatsoever and don't claim to. (I actually considered saying as such in the writeup but it's already so verbose that I felt it wasn't worth it). This doesn't really pass the sniff test. You wrote 7500 words on this topic, but felt that including "I have zero experience in any relevant fields" would be overly verbose? Are you sure there wasn't another reason? arguments should be evaluated on their merits, rather than credentials It's not about credentials, it's about relevant knowledge and experience, without which it can be very difficult to actually properly evaluate the merits.
- ryankemper 6y ago
  > This doesn't really pass the sniff test. You wrote 7500 words on this topic, but felt that including "I have zero experience in any relevant fields" would be overly verbose? Are you sure there wasn't another reason? https://gitlab.com/ryankemper/writings/-/commit https://gitlab.com/ryankemper/writings/-/commit /05b4b616c5e0017b0f80682533399c8696d897b5
shkkmo 6y ago
When have some expertise, you should absolutely evaluate ideas on their merits. When you lack the expertise to do that effectively, you should listen to the experts (ideally those that demonstrate that they are evaluating ideas based on their merits). The trick is determine which questions you have the expertise to evaluate for yourself and which you are better of relying on experts to evaluate. Unfortunately, this is an area where a large number of non-experts vastly overestimate the difficulty of the material vs their own level of knowledge. This leads to the increasing proliferation of misinformation and misleading analysis like yours. Credentials are not the only way to acquire or demonstrate expertise. You say you are a "dude that likes to read research papers", how many epidemiological research papers have you read? How much time have you spent discussing those papers with epidemiological experts? Did you reach out to any of those experts to have them take a first pass as fixing any mistakes you made before you decided to post it publicly Instead you decided to broadcast your ignorance with confidence about an area already ripe with misinformation that is costing people their lives. You are being irresponsible.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  Absolutely wrong. Analysis done by informed laymen is essential in breaking intellectual logjams in established fields. These situations happen over and over again in history. It's increasingly looking like we have one of these logjams in public health right now. Ideas need to be evaluated on their merits in all cases, especially in times of controversy.
  - shkkmo 6y ago
    > Analysis done by informed laymen is essential in breaking intellectual logjams in established fields. Which is why it is important that people with the expertise evaluate those ideas on their merits. What doesn't help is when less informed laymen think they can accurately judge the validity of ideas put forward by slightly more informed laymen. What active hurts is when those less informed laymen start spreading their half-balked ideas and trying to impact policy without making an effort to get their ideas validated by people with the experience to find the simple, obvious errors they are making.
whatisthiseven 6y ago
> Indeed having credentials makes it that much easier to fall prey to cognitive distortions And having no credentials makes it even easier to make blatantly wrong assessments, to read the data incorrectly, to completely misunderstand terms of art, to accidentally believe that because you are smart, you can evaluate another field easily with some hard thinking. Having no credentials means you are likely to not know what you don't know, and so gloss over an entire section of a field when making conclusions. It means not having worked with similar data before to help build a "sniff test" for when something in your work doesn't look right. The difference between no credentials and credentials in assessing a complex topic and communicating that to a broad audience is as a vast as the difference between the seasonal flu and coronavirus.

meheleventyone 6y ago

> I have no directly relevant credentials whatsoever and don't claim to. IMO this should be a disclaimer in bold right at the very top of the article.

ryankemper 6y ago
Done. https://gitlab.com/ryankemper/writings/-/commit/05b4b616c5e0017b0f80682533399c8696d897b5 https://gitlab.com/ryankemper/writings/-/commit/05b4b616c5e0...
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  Thanks, it’s a good commitment to representing your argument clearly and does you credit.

ryanwaggoner 6y ago

I have no directly relevant credentials whatsoever and don't claim to. (I actually considered saying as such in the writeup but it's already so verbose that I felt it wasn't worth it). This doesn't really pass the sniff test. You wrote 7500 words on this topic, but felt that including "I have zero experience in any relevant fields" would be overly verbose? Are you sure there wasn't another reason? arguments should be evaluated on their merits, rather than credentials It's not about credentials, it's about relevant knowledge and experience, without which it can be very difficult to actually properly evaluate the merits.

ryankemper 6y ago
> This doesn't really pass the sniff test. You wrote 7500 words on this topic, but felt that including "I have zero experience in any relevant fields" would be overly verbose? Are you sure there wasn't another reason? https://gitlab.com/ryankemper/writings/-/commit https://gitlab.com/ryankemper/writings/-/commit /05b4b616c5e0017b0f80682533399c8696d897b5

shkkmo 6y ago

When have some expertise, you should absolutely evaluate ideas on their merits. When you lack the expertise to do that effectively, you should listen to the experts (ideally those that demonstrate that they are evaluating ideas based on their merits). The trick is determine which questions you have the expertise to evaluate for yourself and which you are better of relying on experts to evaluate. Unfortunately, this is an area where a large number of non-experts vastly overestimate the difficulty of the material vs their own level of knowledge. This leads to the increasing proliferation of misinformation and misleading analysis like yours. Credentials are not the only way to acquire or demonstrate expertise. You say you are a "dude that likes to read research papers", how many epidemiological research papers have you read? How much time have you spent discussing those papers with epidemiological experts? Did you reach out to any of those experts to have them take a first pass as fixing any mistakes you made before you decided to post it publicly Instead you decided to broadcast your ignorance with confidence about an area already ripe with misinformation that is costing people their lives. You are being irresponsible.

quotemstr 6y ago
Absolutely wrong. Analysis done by informed laymen is essential in breaking intellectual logjams in established fields. These situations happen over and over again in history. It's increasingly looking like we have one of these logjams in public health right now. Ideas need to be evaluated on their merits in all cases, especially in times of controversy.
- shkkmo 6y ago
  > Analysis done by informed laymen is essential in breaking intellectual logjams in established fields. Which is why it is important that people with the expertise evaluate those ideas on their merits. What doesn't help is when less informed laymen think they can accurately judge the validity of ideas put forward by slightly more informed laymen. What active hurts is when those less informed laymen start spreading their half-balked ideas and trying to impact policy without making an effort to get their ideas validated by people with the experience to find the simple, obvious errors they are making.

whatisthiseven 6y ago

> Indeed having credentials makes it that much easier to fall prey to cognitive distortions And having no credentials makes it even easier to make blatantly wrong assessments, to read the data incorrectly, to completely misunderstand terms of art, to accidentally believe that because you are smart, you can evaluate another field easily with some hard thinking. Having no credentials means you are likely to not know what you don't know, and so gloss over an entire section of a field when making conclusions. It means not having worked with similar data before to help build a "sniff test" for when something in your work doesn't look right. The difference between no credentials and credentials in assessing a complex topic and communicating that to a broad audience is as a vast as the difference between the seasonal flu and coronavirus.