4 ms·

The non-consensus outsiders who make progress have done the reading. They know what the consensus is, they know all the concepts and the jargon, and they disagr

The non-consensus outsiders who make progress have done the reading. They know what the consensus is, they know all the concepts and the jargon, and they disagree about something. Your post can be interpreted to mean "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge". That's anti-vax thinking and argument. That is not a way to make progress.

maedla 6y ago
Yep exactly. For every one outsider that gets it right, how many are wrong? I'd wager, quite a bit
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Expertise is not a Boolean. I'd trust a qualified physicist to make useful predictions about quantum devices, an EE to model an analog circuit, and a structural engineer to design a bridge that doesn't fall down. But financiers, bankers, and economists have a much less convincing record - and that's after you filter out the ones who have been caught breaking the law.
  - 7d6dyeyee 6y ago
    I always hear these sorts of criticisms of economists and financiers but I just don't think they hold water overall. Usually when I hear econ get flak the conversation rapidly devolves into criticisns of the abstract fairness of a solution rather then its priorities and effectiveness within the context. You see this constantly in the US when politicians from either side talk about the bank bailouts, the national debt, minimum wage, immigration, etc. Suddenly, rather than having anything resembling a sober and informed discussion about the topic and the current expert consensus, everyone just starts soapboxing about fatcats and entitlement while larping as intellectuals as they promote fringe 'theories' that happened to coincide with their political objectives. Meanwhile the actual economists and their suggestions get either drowned out or misrepresented.
cogman10 6y ago
Pretty well captured by that old comedy sketch "The expert" [1] I dare say that most people here on HN have been hit by upper management telling them to do something stupid or impossible. I'd even wager that most have had them get defensive when you try to explain why doing X isn't a good idea. That's effectively what I see when someone criticizes "experts" broadly and generally. I've long accepted that there are many individuals that know a lot more about subjects I know little about. While I have a pretty good read on things related to computers, I'm more than willing to admit that I'm not an expert in science, medicine, climatology. So who should I trust? Should I trust the youtuber that's "Found" the secret that the "so called experts" are trying to hide from the public? Or should I look to the actual experts actually working in the field and take their word for it? Or do I take the harder route and try and build understanding on the subject on my own? I certainly have tried to expand my personal understanding in general. However, what I've found is that by and large the experts actually know what they are talking about. You should generally trust them. The place where I've found a LOT of misinformation is the "skeptics" that hurl doubt without evidence while denigrating "experts". That is the place where I've found outright lies. Evidence of such BS artists include Flat earthers, Anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers. Those are all flat out wrong positions. There's mountains of evidence and experts against each of those positions and mostly lies or misrepresentation in favor. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
- mcguire 6y ago
  If an old, grey haired scientist tells you something is possible, he's probably right. If he tells you something is impossible, he's probably wrong.[1] But if a hundred scientists tell you something, they might be wrong but it's still the way you want to put your money. [1] As the saying goes.
  - cvwright 6y ago
    > [1] As the saying goes. It's from Arthur C. Clarke. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/155962-when-a-distinguished-but-elderly-scientist-states-that-something-is https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/155962-when-a-distinguished...
adkadskhj 6y ago
Very well said, thank you. That was my objection, too. Outsider is a meaningful distinction in that they're still a domain expert (or something), just not inline with the standard. What the OP comment was citing wasn't that. Rather, it was people like me - reading that document, not knowing the terms but assembling some form of self reinforced "knowledge". There's a difference between very well informed outsiders which rival experts and random people. Thinking I know more about vaccines and the dangers than researchers, doctors, etc is moronic. I have no foundation to be making that decision, and beyond the obvious "free will" arguments, i shouldn't.
stcredzero 6y ago
The non-consensus outsiders who make progress have done the reading. They know what the consensus is, they know all the concepts and the jargon, and they disagree about something. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Paddywack 6y ago
I would frame this on two axis: 1) outsider vs establishment 2) expert vs layperson My opinion (see below for how I have defined these) Outsider expert > establishment expert for public ally challenging and overturning norms Any expert > layperson on the basic facts (ignoring statistical aberrations, of course) “Outsider” being unconstrained by norms, not afraid to be cast out of a long established peer group “Expert” has deep grasp of contemporary facts, second and third order consequences, puts in controls to remove cognitive biases, deep curiosity and healthy scepticism. “Layperson” being someone who is probably intelligent, but grasps quickly onto unfamiliar concepts and data and makes heuristic calls based on limited data.
- Paddywack 6y ago
  Note the Dunning Kruger effect too!
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  So Michael Mauboussin is kinda of my obsession in this area. Basically, if it's a field with a lot of luck involved in outcomes, don't trust the experts (finance and economics). If it's heavily skill based (chess), trust the experts.

maedla 6y ago

Yep exactly. For every one outsider that gets it right, how many are wrong? I'd wager, quite a bit

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Expertise is not a Boolean. I'd trust a qualified physicist to make useful predictions about quantum devices, an EE to model an analog circuit, and a structural engineer to design a bridge that doesn't fall down. But financiers, bankers, and economists have a much less convincing record - and that's after you filter out the ones who have been caught breaking the law.
- 7d6dyeyee 6y ago
  I always hear these sorts of criticisms of economists and financiers but I just don't think they hold water overall. Usually when I hear econ get flak the conversation rapidly devolves into criticisns of the abstract fairness of a solution rather then its priorities and effectiveness within the context. You see this constantly in the US when politicians from either side talk about the bank bailouts, the national debt, minimum wage, immigration, etc. Suddenly, rather than having anything resembling a sober and informed discussion about the topic and the current expert consensus, everyone just starts soapboxing about fatcats and entitlement while larping as intellectuals as they promote fringe 'theories' that happened to coincide with their political objectives. Meanwhile the actual economists and their suggestions get either drowned out or misrepresented.

cogman10 6y ago

Pretty well captured by that old comedy sketch "The expert" [1] I dare say that most people here on HN have been hit by upper management telling them to do something stupid or impossible. I'd even wager that most have had them get defensive when you try to explain why doing X isn't a good idea. That's effectively what I see when someone criticizes "experts" broadly and generally. I've long accepted that there are many individuals that know a lot more about subjects I know little about. While I have a pretty good read on things related to computers, I'm more than willing to admit that I'm not an expert in science, medicine, climatology. So who should I trust? Should I trust the youtuber that's "Found" the secret that the "so called experts" are trying to hide from the public? Or should I look to the actual experts actually working in the field and take their word for it? Or do I take the harder route and try and build understanding on the subject on my own? I certainly have tried to expand my personal understanding in general. However, what I've found is that by and large the experts actually know what they are talking about. You should generally trust them. The place where I've found a LOT of misinformation is the "skeptics" that hurl doubt without evidence while denigrating "experts". That is the place where I've found outright lies. Evidence of such BS artists include Flat earthers, Anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers. Those are all flat out wrong positions. There's mountains of evidence and experts against each of those positions and mostly lies or misrepresentation in favor. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

mcguire 6y ago
If an old, grey haired scientist tells you something is possible, he's probably right. If he tells you something is impossible, he's probably wrong.[1] But if a hundred scientists tell you something, they might be wrong but it's still the way you want to put your money. [1] As the saying goes.
- cvwright 6y ago
  > [1] As the saying goes. It's from Arthur C. Clarke. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/155962-when-a-distinguished-but-elderly-scientist-states-that-something-is https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/155962-when-a-distinguished...

adkadskhj 6y ago

Very well said, thank you. That was my objection, too. Outsider is a meaningful distinction in that they're still a domain expert (or something), just not inline with the standard. What the OP comment was citing wasn't that. Rather, it was people like me - reading that document, not knowing the terms but assembling some form of self reinforced "knowledge". There's a difference between very well informed outsiders which rival experts and random people. Thinking I know more about vaccines and the dangers than researchers, doctors, etc is moronic. I have no foundation to be making that decision, and beyond the obvious "free will" arguments, i shouldn't.

stcredzero 6y ago

The non-consensus outsiders who make progress have done the reading. They know what the consensus is, they know all the concepts and the jargon, and they disagree about something. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Paddywack 6y ago

I would frame this on two axis: 1) outsider vs establishment 2) expert vs layperson My opinion (see below for how I have defined these) Outsider expert > establishment expert for public ally challenging and overturning norms Any expert > layperson on the basic facts (ignoring statistical aberrations, of course) “Outsider” being unconstrained by norms, not afraid to be cast out of a long established peer group “Expert” has deep grasp of contemporary facts, second and third order consequences, puts in controls to remove cognitive biases, deep curiosity and healthy scepticism. “Layperson” being someone who is probably intelligent, but grasps quickly onto unfamiliar concepts and data and makes heuristic calls based on limited data.

Paddywack 6y ago
Note the Dunning Kruger effect too!
edmundsauto 6y ago
So Michael Mauboussin is kinda of my obsession in this area. Basically, if it's a field with a lot of luck involved in outcomes, don't trust the experts (finance and economics). If it's heavily skill based (chess), trust the experts.