6 ms·

It's sad that we don't seem to train young people to assess ideas themselves rather than trust in things like degrees (which can be meaningless depending on the

It's sad that we don't seem to train young people to assess ideas themselves rather than trust in things like degrees (which can be meaningless depending on the quality of the institution that issued them) But I think there's a big caveat here in that "numpty@gmail.com" doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the shed. That sounds harsh but it is important because stupid people tend to be more trusting in authority figures. For good reason. Evolutionarily speaking someone who is lacking intelligence is less likely to survive and following someone who seems to excel in that area increases their chance of survival greatly. Less than intelligent people being in positions of authority seems like a relatively new development in human evolution since I'd assume it stems from the transfer of wealth between generations (which wasn't possible until technology gave us the ability to create and maintain assets of some significance). So for most of human history a stupid person was better off following an authority figure and I'm sure the instinct is still embedded in people like this. Which in turn makes him trust in meaningless pieces of paper that convey authority rather than his own assessment of the ideas presented.

fleitz 15y ago
Evolution doesn't say that at all, evolution predicts that the fittest for their environment will survive. Given that the number of children one has is inversely correlated with 'intelligence' it would seem that the stupid are more fit to survive by nature of their willingness to pass on their genes. Social Darwinism is not the mode of operation for industrialized nations so it's debatable whether there are any significant evolutionary fitness functions in place in the first world.
- mattgreenrocks 15y ago
  Meta: It's always strange how few people question the dogma that evolution influences every last detail of human behavior. But I wouldn't make that statement outright. It is heretical.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    Like most of science, rhetoricians rely on a poor understanding of what evolution actually says to foster ideas that have no basis in any meaningful scientific understanding of the topic, but seem to make common sense. The funny thing about evolution and rhetoric is that evolution is usually used to create acceptance for the policies that will make the fitness function a reality. (eg. mutilating the reproductive organs of those who score low on IQ tests)
- tokenadult 15y ago
  Given that the number of children one has is inversely correlated with 'intelligence' This is very likely untrue, according to thorough statisticians and professional geneticists. http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-Professional-Publications/dp/0387982345 http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-Professiona... If you have a citation for professionally published research on the point I would be happy to look it up. More good information about the subject can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Intellige... for readers who would like to look up the facts.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    "Although much of the research into intelligence and fertility has been restricted to individuals within a single nation (usually the United States), Steven Shatz (2008) extended the research internationally; he finds that "There is a strong tendency for countries with lower national IQ scores to have higher fertility rates and for countries with higher national IQ scores to have lower fertility rates."[23]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence "At present rates of fertility and mortality and in the absence of changes within countries, the average IQ of the young world population would decline by 1.34 points per decade and the average per capita income would decline by 0.79% per year."[25]" [23] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.intell.2007.03.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.intell.2007.03.002 [25] http://dx.doi.org/10.1017%2FS0021932009003344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017%2FS0021932009003344
    - tomp 15y ago
      > the average IQ of the young world population would decline I don't thinnk IQ is the right measure for that... IQ is defined in terms of the average intelligence (really, it's the median, but unless the distribution is strongly skewed, it's almost the same).
    - tokenadult 15y ago
      Thanks for the link to Wikipedia, which I help edit, but you have to know that all the Wikipedia articles related to human intelligence are suspect summaries often based on suspect sources, as they have been the focus of a long-standing dispute with much edit-warring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/... that is still going on. The statement that the world population's IQ is expected to decline is directly contradicted by the Flynn Effect, http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=flynns-effect http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=flynns-effe... http://www.psychometrics.ppsis.cam.ac.uk/news.13.htm http://www.psychometrics.ppsis.cam.ac.uk/news.13.htm http://www.theamericanscholar.org/nurtural-intelligence/ http://www.theamericanscholar.org/nurtural-intelligence/ http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-Effect/dp/0521880076 http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-Effect/... the observed steady rise in IQ scores across a large variety of countries over the last century.
thaumaturgy 15y ago
> It's sad that we don't seem to train young people to assess ideas themselves rather than trust in things like degrees ... It is impossible (for now) to develop enough expertise in every subject you may ever encounter to be able to assess the fundamentals of that subject on your own. Thus, expertise is used as a reasonable signal when sorting out "correct" ideas from "incorrect" ideas. (I would point out that the still-often-requested return of points displays on HN comments usually alludes to this: people asking for it say they want it because it helps them sort out what's "good" from what's not.) > But I think there's a big caveat here in that "numpty@gmail.com" doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the shed. The most that we could conclude from the correspondence is that he is either intellectually lazy -- either temporarily, possibly as a result of a deadline, or more long term -- or that he is behaving as a result of his educational environment. There is no way to determine his intelligence from this tiny little exchange, which invalidates the rest of your comment. One of the worst things that a "smart" person can do is look for evidence of stupidity in the people around them.
- econgeeker 15y ago
  You're presuming that you need to develop expertise in a particular area in order to sort out "correct" ideas. This presumption is falling into the trap that is being pointed out. Put me in a room with an expert in a topical area and a professionally trained liar. If I know nothing about the area, and these two people are having a debate, I will be able to tell which one is the expert, not by knowing his qualifications -- he may not have any-- but by being able to evaluate the quality of the arguments. Even if the liar is equally qualified to the expert but is lying, you can tell. It is not that they are lying that gives them away, it is that they must, inevitably, make poorer arguments. The very idea of "Expertise" is a renunciation of intellectual thought. I have spent most of my adult life believing that most people were as smart as me, and that they might just not be as well informed as me. I cannot say whether it is stupidity that is the problem, and I certainly never went looking for the evidence of it, but I have been, at long last, forced to conclude that most people are trained not to think and spend much of their lives avoiding it. This reliance on credentials is a crutch and an excuse for not thinking. Credentials are useful to know the basis for debate, or someone's background, not for determining whether they are correct or not. I believe people are being taught not to think, and this is one of the methods.
kenjackson 15y ago
So for most of human history a stupid person was better off following an authority figure and I'm sure the instinct is still embedded in people like this. I'll ignore the evolutionary argument, but I still think your central thesis is incorrect. Everyone is better off following an authority figure sometimes, because it is rare that you always know enough to make a solid decision purely on the facts. For example, many people rely on PG as a guide for companies to invest in and/or follow. Oddly though this is one area where due diligence can probably reasonably be done. But there are areas where it is more difficult. These fall into a few buckets: 1. Knowledge based. How many people here believe Wiles proved FLT? How many actually understand the proof? How many have taken his word and the word of other mathematicians? Honestly, I haven't even looked at the proof. Frankly, I'm not sure if it would make a difference if I did. It would probably take more five years of actual math training for me to understand it -- and I'm probably in the top 1% in math for the general population. I defer to authority because I frankly don't have the ability to effectively assess it today with my current skillset. 2. Resources. I trust the food I buy at Safeway or Whole Foods is relatively safe. I don't have the resources to test food for various bacteria and such. I rely on authorities who have resources that I don't. 3. Choice. Almost all books I read are recommended by someone I consider an authority. Whether it is a molecular biology book, a book on measure theory, or even which JS book to read -- I read the ones recommended by people who I view as authorities. Sure I could review every book available and then choose one, but it doesn't seem like a good use of time, and furthermore, since I don't know much about molecular biology, I don't really know if the text is even factually accurate. When I buy appliances/electronics I almost always consult the web to find authoritative review sites that strongly guide my purchasing -- especially in areas I know little about, like dishwashing machines. 4. Turtles. At what point must you finally concede to an authority? As I noted I'm reading a book on molecular biology, written by prominent molecular biologists, recommended by a prominent molecular biologist. Do I trust what I'm reading in the book, or do I have a microscope by my side at all time verifying each and every statement I read? "It says that DNA looks like this for every animal, but have they looked at my dog's DNA? Grover!" At some point, for some things, you have to say that it's authorities all the way down
- TeMPOraL 15y ago
  You're very right and I tend to do the same things as you described. I guess the only effective solution is to trust the knowledge one learns from authorities and stay vigilant to spot when things stop making sense or start breaking down. It is then, when it's possible to find who in this ladder of authorities was wrong, and know how to correct the error.

fleitz 15y ago

Evolution doesn't say that at all, evolution predicts that the fittest for their environment will survive. Given that the number of children one has is inversely correlated with 'intelligence' it would seem that the stupid are more fit to survive by nature of their willingness to pass on their genes. Social Darwinism is not the mode of operation for industrialized nations so it's debatable whether there are any significant evolutionary fitness functions in place in the first world.

mattgreenrocks 15y ago
Meta: It's always strange how few people question the dogma that evolution influences every last detail of human behavior. But I wouldn't make that statement outright. It is heretical.
- fleitz 15y ago
  Like most of science, rhetoricians rely on a poor understanding of what evolution actually says to foster ideas that have no basis in any meaningful scientific understanding of the topic, but seem to make common sense. The funny thing about evolution and rhetoric is that evolution is usually used to create acceptance for the policies that will make the fitness function a reality. (eg. mutilating the reproductive organs of those who score low on IQ tests)
tokenadult 15y ago
Given that the number of children one has is inversely correlated with 'intelligence' This is very likely untrue, according to thorough statisticians and professional geneticists. http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-Professional-Publications/dp/0387982345 http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Genes-Success-Professiona... If you have a citation for professionally published research on the point I would be happy to look it up. More good information about the subject can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Intellige... for readers who would like to look up the facts.
- fleitz 15y ago
  "Although much of the research into intelligence and fertility has been restricted to individuals within a single nation (usually the United States), Steven Shatz (2008) extended the research internationally; he finds that "There is a strong tendency for countries with lower national IQ scores to have higher fertility rates and for countries with higher national IQ scores to have lower fertility rates."[23]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence "At present rates of fertility and mortality and in the absence of changes within countries, the average IQ of the young world population would decline by 1.34 points per decade and the average per capita income would decline by 0.79% per year."[25]" [23] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.intell.2007.03.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.intell.2007.03.002 [25] http://dx.doi.org/10.1017%2FS0021932009003344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017%2FS0021932009003344
  - tomp 15y ago
    > the average IQ of the young world population would decline I don't thinnk IQ is the right measure for that... IQ is defined in terms of the average intelligence (really, it's the median, but unless the distribution is strongly skewed, it's almost the same).
  - tokenadult 15y ago
    Thanks for the link to Wikipedia, which I help edit, but you have to know that all the Wikipedia articles related to human intelligence are suspect summaries often based on suspect sources, as they have been the focus of a long-standing dispute with much edit-warring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/... that is still going on. The statement that the world population's IQ is expected to decline is directly contradicted by the Flynn Effect, http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=flynns-effect http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=flynns-effe... http://www.psychometrics.ppsis.cam.ac.uk/news.13.htm http://www.psychometrics.ppsis.cam.ac.uk/news.13.htm http://www.theamericanscholar.org/nurtural-intelligence/ http://www.theamericanscholar.org/nurtural-intelligence/ http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-Effect/dp/0521880076 http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Beyond-Flynn-Effect/... the observed steady rise in IQ scores across a large variety of countries over the last century.

thaumaturgy 15y ago

> It's sad that we don't seem to train young people to assess ideas themselves rather than trust in things like degrees ... It is impossible (for now) to develop enough expertise in every subject you may ever encounter to be able to assess the fundamentals of that subject on your own. Thus, expertise is used as a reasonable signal when sorting out "correct" ideas from "incorrect" ideas. (I would point out that the still-often-requested return of points displays on HN comments usually alludes to this: people asking for it say they want it because it helps them sort out what's "good" from what's not.) > But I think there's a big caveat here in that "numpty@gmail.com" doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the shed. The most that we could conclude from the correspondence is that he is either intellectually lazy -- either temporarily, possibly as a result of a deadline, or more long term -- or that he is behaving as a result of his educational environment. There is no way to determine his intelligence from this tiny little exchange, which invalidates the rest of your comment. One of the worst things that a "smart" person can do is look for evidence of stupidity in the people around them.

econgeeker 15y ago
You're presuming that you need to develop expertise in a particular area in order to sort out "correct" ideas. This presumption is falling into the trap that is being pointed out. Put me in a room with an expert in a topical area and a professionally trained liar. If I know nothing about the area, and these two people are having a debate, I will be able to tell which one is the expert, not by knowing his qualifications -- he may not have any-- but by being able to evaluate the quality of the arguments. Even if the liar is equally qualified to the expert but is lying, you can tell. It is not that they are lying that gives them away, it is that they must, inevitably, make poorer arguments. The very idea of "Expertise" is a renunciation of intellectual thought. I have spent most of my adult life believing that most people were as smart as me, and that they might just not be as well informed as me. I cannot say whether it is stupidity that is the problem, and I certainly never went looking for the evidence of it, but I have been, at long last, forced to conclude that most people are trained not to think and spend much of their lives avoiding it. This reliance on credentials is a crutch and an excuse for not thinking. Credentials are useful to know the basis for debate, or someone's background, not for determining whether they are correct or not. I believe people are being taught not to think, and this is one of the methods.

kenjackson 15y ago

So for most of human history a stupid person was better off following an authority figure and I'm sure the instinct is still embedded in people like this. I'll ignore the evolutionary argument, but I still think your central thesis is incorrect. Everyone is better off following an authority figure sometimes, because it is rare that you always know enough to make a solid decision purely on the facts. For example, many people rely on PG as a guide for companies to invest in and/or follow. Oddly though this is one area where due diligence can probably reasonably be done. But there are areas where it is more difficult. These fall into a few buckets: 1. Knowledge based. How many people here believe Wiles proved FLT? How many actually understand the proof? How many have taken his word and the word of other mathematicians? Honestly, I haven't even looked at the proof. Frankly, I'm not sure if it would make a difference if I did. It would probably take more five years of actual math training for me to understand it -- and I'm probably in the top 1% in math for the general population. I defer to authority because I frankly don't have the ability to effectively assess it today with my current skillset. 2. Resources. I trust the food I buy at Safeway or Whole Foods is relatively safe. I don't have the resources to test food for various bacteria and such. I rely on authorities who have resources that I don't. 3. Choice. Almost all books I read are recommended by someone I consider an authority. Whether it is a molecular biology book, a book on measure theory, or even which JS book to read -- I read the ones recommended by people who I view as authorities. Sure I could review every book available and then choose one, but it doesn't seem like a good use of time, and furthermore, since I don't know much about molecular biology, I don't really know if the text is even factually accurate. When I buy appliances/electronics I almost always consult the web to find authoritative review sites that strongly guide my purchasing -- especially in areas I know little about, like dishwashing machines. 4. Turtles. At what point must you finally concede to an authority? As I noted I'm reading a book on molecular biology, written by prominent molecular biologists, recommended by a prominent molecular biologist. Do I trust what I'm reading in the book, or do I have a microscope by my side at all time verifying each and every statement I read? "It says that DNA looks like this for every animal, but have they looked at my dog's DNA? Grover!" At some point, for some things, you have to say that it's authorities all the way down

TeMPOraL 15y ago
You're very right and I tend to do the same things as you described. I guess the only effective solution is to trust the knowledge one learns from authorities and stay vigilant to spot when things stop making sense or start breaking down. It is then, when it's possible to find who in this ladder of authorities was wrong, and know how to correct the error.