3 ms·
I’m not sure if the things I’m pointing out support your theory or not. It's not a theory. It's a comment on a public forum, not a PhD thesis. I've had some p
by DoreenMichele 6y ago
I’m not sure if the things I’m pointing out support your theory or not.
It's not a theory. It's a comment on a public forum, not a PhD thesis.
I've had some pertinent classes, like Intro to Psychology, Social Psychology, and Negotiation and Conflict Management. In my youth, I spent about 3.5 years in therapy to sort out baggage from childhood trauma. I've journaled and blogged for a lot of years, so introspection and trying to figure out what makes me tick is a longstanding habit.
I raised two special-needs sons who don't intuitively understand social stuff, so trying to explain things to them really helped hone my understanding of some things. I had to up my game by quite a lot to help them get a meaningful and useful understanding of social phenomenon.
Social phenomenon are inherently hard to find good information about. Studies tend to be really bad. People who know they are participating in a study almost by definition don't behave like the do "normally."
I continue to talk with my sons about social phenomenon because it remains an ongoing area of interest. My sons and I talk fairly often about what constitutes a good source of social insight and what doesn't. I comment about it sometimes on HN because I hang here and sometimes people find my comments of value.
It's my opinion. My opinions on such topics seem to generally be on more solid footing than average. They usually aren't, per se, backed up by some kind of scientific study, though they are generally informed by gathering solid tidbits of useful info over the years.
If you don't agree with it, it's totes fine.
- dahart 6y agoSorry, I meant theory casually, as a synonym for the word you used, explanation. I think I’m agreeing with you, and I think it’s an interesting explanation and a valuable comment. I have no doubt that you’re right that people are socially protective, and some people pull back publicly to fit in. It’s just that as a response to DK or to Tal, I feel like it might be mostly orthogonal and independent. I’m pretty sure that the DK study itself didn’t experience or measure this kind of social self-protection, because of the methods described in the paper. What I disagree with is the DK paper. They make broad generalizations and speculations about behavior throughout that their own data do not support. And the paper seems to be almost completely misinterpreted. Despite the data and the statements in the paper, everyone seems to think that the paper shows confidence being an indicator of lack of skill. It doesn’t help that the paper’s title misleadingly walks you right into that idea. > Studies tend to be really bad. You can say that again.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]