5 ms·
I think that comes down to self-proclaimed experts vs experts as decided by their peers. Many of the people I met who were considered experts and had a vast de
by grawprog 6y ago
I think that comes down to self-proclaimed experts vs experts as decided by their peers.
Many of the people I met who were considered experts and had a vast depth of knowledge never referred to themselves as experts and seemed do get embarrassed at the idea.
Whereas, i've met several self-proclaimed experts who liked to talk a lot about how great they were, but never really showed the depths of knowledge the other kind of experts showed.
At least from my experiences anyway in life.
- potta_coffee 6y agoPeer incentives and desires can also be skewed / wrong. Just because there's some kind of consensus doesn't mean the conclusion is correct.
- mc32 6y agoIs it better to have the right framework but come to the wrong conclusion (for now), or is it better to reach the true conclusion with the wrong framework or basis? I guess it depends on timeline.
- pdonis 6y ago> I think that comes down to self-proclaimed experts vs experts as decided by their peers. I think the correct criterion is neither of these: it's whether the expert can back up their expertise with models that have a good predictive track record. That's the real test of whether they actually know what they are talking about vs. just blowing smoke. Unfortunately, this criterion is hardly ever applied that I can see.