5 ms·

> Time and time again, experts have been shown to have consensus opinions which are wildly off from reality No, it's just that it's not interesting when an exp

> Time and time again, experts have been shown to have consensus opinions which are wildly off from reality No, it's just that it's not interesting when an expert is right about their domain expertise so we don't talk about it. The issue is people getting skewed by this and then inferring that it must mean, on average, that their outsider opinion is as valid as experts, but really, it's not.

tompccs 6y ago
Of course, an outsider can't simply declare something to be true by dint of being an outsider. You need to reason it. Or, in the market, bet on it, and you'll see who wins out. But experts should be held to the same standard.
- kd0amg 6y ago
  > Or, in the market, bet on it, and you'll see who wins out. This is a fine way to settle debates about the health/viability of a publicly traded company, but it doesn't help much when the point of contention is a question of law.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The other issue is that it tends to be underspecified whether a discussion is about law or policy. Someone comes in and describes from first principles what a reasonable system would look like, and then someone else haughtily chastises them because that isn't how the existing system works. But if you read it as they intended it, i.e. as a policy proposal rather than a legal opinion, then the fact that it isn't the existing system is the point. The intention is to change the system to make it that way and the desired response is either support or a criticism of the mechanics of the proposal rather than its basis in existing law.
    - mcguire 6y ago
      On the other hand, many people who reason from first principles fall into two fallacies: First, they believe that their system is how the world should work, and therefore how it would work if only someone, somewhere, weren't interfering. The result is conspiracy theories. Second, they have not fully thought out the consequences, or don't care about them, and dismiss the historical consequences of similar systems in the past. Reasoning with people who ignore evidence in favor of their theorizing is difficult.
      - andrewprock 6y ago
        I can only applaud this succinct diagnosis of the difficulty in dealing with online debate.
        pas 6y ago
        Offline debates tend to be even worse. You usually don't have time to read it at your pace, whoever talks to you will keep making sounds, etc.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- avs733 6y ago
  > an outsider can't simply declare something to be true by dint of being an outsider. you must be new to the internet.
  - pas 6y ago
    So ... an outsider who just declared something as true. It's tautologies all the way down! :)
    - avs733 6y ago
      a tautologie is a form of turtle, I don't understand why the herpetologists haven't read my medium to understand that.
ditonal 6y ago
If a physicists tells me something about how the solar system works, they don't have much reason to lie to me. If RobinHood tells me how clearing houses work, they have a huge reason to lie to me. Given what we say in cases like Enron, Bear Stearns, I am shocked and dismayed at the eagerness of Hacker News contributors to so readily accept whatever Robinhood tells them as 100% gospel. Where were all these experts on clearing houses a week ago, warning of this exact risk? Because plenty of people had opinions on Gamestop, that maybe the SEC would halt trading altogether etc, but not a single person mentioned this clearing house liquidity issues until it happened. And I still really can't get a good explanation for why if I had 10k in my non-margin account that cleared over a year ago I can't use that to buy a stock(or withdraw for that matter, though hopefully that's temporary). OR, if people were allowed to sell stock, who were they selling to?? Clearly SOMEONE was allowed to buy! A lot of misdirection around things like margin accounts. Robinhood didn't give any real explanation until many hours later. But they're apparently just "poor communicators." Amazing how a billion dollar company filled with conflicts of interest making a totally unprecedented restriction that actively helps their hedge fund investor simply can't possibly be committing any sort of fraud. Because nobody's ever committed fraud before, a Robinhood press release must be treated as the "facts". This is insanity . Robinhood are not the "experts" in this case, their version of truth is probably the least reliable of all parties.
- CabSauce 6y ago
  I don't think anyone is saying "we don't need to investigate". They're saying "let's find evidence before we assume malintent".
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    The internet mob does not wait for pesky delays of "evidence"!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- stcredzero 6y ago
  If RobinHood tells me how clearing houses work, they have a huge reason to lie to me. If there are enough mechanisms of "Crony Capitalism" at play, to cause most of the trading apps in existence to halt trading, this is definitely something that needs to be investigated. Likewise, if there are enough of these crony mechanisms involving collusion between Facebook, Twitter, Square, Stripe, and Visa targeting people, this also warrants investigation. It seems to be part and parcel the same sort of thing. People have been calling stuff like this out since the 80's! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

tompccs 6y ago

Of course, an outsider can't simply declare something to be true by dint of being an outsider. You need to reason it. Or, in the market, bet on it, and you'll see who wins out. But experts should be held to the same standard.

kd0amg 6y ago
> Or, in the market, bet on it, and you'll see who wins out. This is a fine way to settle debates about the health/viability of a publicly traded company, but it doesn't help much when the point of contention is a question of law.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The other issue is that it tends to be underspecified whether a discussion is about law or policy. Someone comes in and describes from first principles what a reasonable system would look like, and then someone else haughtily chastises them because that isn't how the existing system works. But if you read it as they intended it, i.e. as a policy proposal rather than a legal opinion, then the fact that it isn't the existing system is the point. The intention is to change the system to make it that way and the desired response is either support or a criticism of the mechanics of the proposal rather than its basis in existing law.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    On the other hand, many people who reason from first principles fall into two fallacies: First, they believe that their system is how the world should work, and therefore how it would work if only someone, somewhere, weren't interfering. The result is conspiracy theories. Second, they have not fully thought out the consequences, or don't care about them, and dismiss the historical consequences of similar systems in the past. Reasoning with people who ignore evidence in favor of their theorizing is difficult.
    - andrewprock 6y ago
      I can only applaud this succinct diagnosis of the difficulty in dealing with online debate.
      - pas 6y ago
        Offline debates tend to be even worse. You usually don't have time to read it at your pace, whoever talks to you will keep making sounds, etc.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
avs733 6y ago
> an outsider can't simply declare something to be true by dint of being an outsider. you must be new to the internet.
- pas 6y ago
  So ... an outsider who just declared something as true. It's tautologies all the way down! :)
  - avs733 6y ago
    a tautologie is a form of turtle, I don't understand why the herpetologists haven't read my medium to understand that.

ditonal 6y ago

If a physicists tells me something about how the solar system works, they don't have much reason to lie to me. If RobinHood tells me how clearing houses work, they have a huge reason to lie to me. Given what we say in cases like Enron, Bear Stearns, I am shocked and dismayed at the eagerness of Hacker News contributors to so readily accept whatever Robinhood tells them as 100% gospel. Where were all these experts on clearing houses a week ago, warning of this exact risk? Because plenty of people had opinions on Gamestop, that maybe the SEC would halt trading altogether etc, but not a single person mentioned this clearing house liquidity issues until it happened. And I still really can't get a good explanation for why if I had 10k in my non-margin account that cleared over a year ago I can't use that to buy a stock(or withdraw for that matter, though hopefully that's temporary). OR, if people were allowed to sell stock, who were they selling to?? Clearly SOMEONE was allowed to buy! A lot of misdirection around things like margin accounts. Robinhood didn't give any real explanation until many hours later. But they're apparently just "poor communicators." Amazing how a billion dollar company filled with conflicts of interest making a totally unprecedented restriction that actively helps their hedge fund investor simply can't possibly be committing any sort of fraud. Because nobody's ever committed fraud before, a Robinhood press release must be treated as the "facts". This is insanity . Robinhood are not the "experts" in this case, their version of truth is probably the least reliable of all parties.

CabSauce 6y ago
I don't think anyone is saying "we don't need to investigate". They're saying "let's find evidence before we assume malintent".
- koheripbal 6y ago
  The internet mob does not wait for pesky delays of "evidence"!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stcredzero 6y ago
If RobinHood tells me how clearing houses work, they have a huge reason to lie to me. If there are enough mechanisms of "Crony Capitalism" at play, to cause most of the trading apps in existence to halt trading, this is definitely something that needs to be investigated. Likewise, if there are enough of these crony mechanisms involving collusion between Facebook, Twitter, Square, Stripe, and Visa targeting people, this also warrants investigation. It seems to be part and parcel the same sort of thing. People have been calling stuff like this out since the 80's! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent