5 ms·

> Then you proceed to learn about CPI in detail for the first time, and use your incomplete understanding to refute mine. > I've been down the rabbit-hole on C

by nuerow 5y ago

> Then you proceed to learn about CPI in detail for the first time, and use your incomplete understanding to refute mine. > I've been down the rabbit-hole on CPI and learned a lot (...). The Wikipedia page is pretty thorough for US CPI [0]. Do you actually feel you're in any position to speak with authority on a subject, inclusive down to people with a background on economics, just because... You claim you read a Wikipedia article?

lend000 5y ago
A couple of recommendations for you: 1. Avoid one of, if not the most common logical fallacy on HN: appeal to authority / credentialism. 2. Do not assume you know anyone's career, life history, or background on a mostly anonymous forum (neither mine nor the previous commenter's). Judge every comment by its merit. I linked the Wikipedia page because it's all you really need to know for the purpose of the conversation. It reveals the flaw I am interested in discussing. If you have anything relevant to contribute to the conversation, I'm all ears.
- nuerow 5y ago
  Please stick to the point: do you actually feel entitled to speak in a position of authority on a subject just because you read a wiki page? I feel you're operating on a grossly inflated and completely unrealistic sense of insightfulness, understanding and self-worth. I mean, think about it: if you manage to become an internet expert by taking a few hours of an afternoon reading a wikipedia article, do you actually believe that level of effort is out of reach of everyone around you, specially those who actually specialized on the subject and made it their life's work? Quite frankly, you sound like a parody of an internet expert, from the lack of self-awareness and humility to the way you speak down to everyone. Please stop.
  - lend000 5y ago
    Flagged for toxicity. The internet is an interesting social experiment. People have a few basic options when confronted with new information that conflicts with what they know (and therefore makes them do work -- rewiring the brain is evolutionarily expensive). 1. Fairly evaluate the idea and engage intellectually and curiously. There is simply too much information out there to do this for every new idea you see, but imo that's kind of the point of a site like this. You should just go to 2. if you are too tired/busy to give it an honest try. 2. Ignore/dismiss. Plain and simple. 3. Get angry and lash out. Make it personal. The most basic and primitive response. This is the one that doesn't belong on HN.
    - IAmGraydon 5y ago
      How do you perceive his reply as getting angry or lashing out? He’s completely correct, and you continue to avoid the question.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Chris2048 5y ago
> inclusive down to people with a background on economics Who has such a qualification in this thread?
- ACow_Adonis 5y ago
  well, just for the record, I do, and I've also worked for the body that calculates our CPI. just before I left we were studying how to get what we call "administrative item data" from the retailer's themselves rather than relying on surveys, household interviews, internet scrapes or staff research. To be fair, CPI was never my specific methodology speciality, but I can talk your ear off about household incomes, relative welfare measures and theoretical probabilistic data linking and entity resolution :) (I've also had a finger in the pie of a lot of other measures even though I wouldn't call them my speciality, but I'll wager I've got more experience than 99.9% of hacker news in this regard). honestly, as someone who's had to put together official stats, I'm almost always disappointed to hear the conspiracy theories and methodology misunderstandings in the general and tech community. back in my day when the government wanted to do actual conspiracy they just cut the funding for measuring/recording something. but instead we get "CPI is rigged", "do you know what the REAL unemployment rate is" government-manipulation ignorant memes.

by nuerow 5y ago

lend000 5y ago

A couple of recommendations for you: 1. Avoid one of, if not the most common logical fallacy on HN: appeal to authority / credentialism. 2. Do not assume you know anyone's career, life history, or background on a mostly anonymous forum (neither mine nor the previous commenter's). Judge every comment by its merit. I linked the Wikipedia page because it's all you really need to know for the purpose of the conversation. It reveals the flaw I am interested in discussing. If you have anything relevant to contribute to the conversation, I'm all ears.

nuerow 5y ago
Please stick to the point: do you actually feel entitled to speak in a position of authority on a subject just because you read a wiki page? I feel you're operating on a grossly inflated and completely unrealistic sense of insightfulness, understanding and self-worth. I mean, think about it: if you manage to become an internet expert by taking a few hours of an afternoon reading a wikipedia article, do you actually believe that level of effort is out of reach of everyone around you, specially those who actually specialized on the subject and made it their life's work? Quite frankly, you sound like a parody of an internet expert, from the lack of self-awareness and humility to the way you speak down to everyone. Please stop.
- lend000 5y ago
  Flagged for toxicity. The internet is an interesting social experiment. People have a few basic options when confronted with new information that conflicts with what they know (and therefore makes them do work -- rewiring the brain is evolutionarily expensive). 1. Fairly evaluate the idea and engage intellectually and curiously. There is simply too much information out there to do this for every new idea you see, but imo that's kind of the point of a site like this. You should just go to 2. if you are too tired/busy to give it an honest try. 2. Ignore/dismiss. Plain and simple. 3. Get angry and lash out. Make it personal. The most basic and primitive response. This is the one that doesn't belong on HN.
  - IAmGraydon 5y ago
    How do you perceive his reply as getting angry or lashing out? He’s completely correct, and you continue to avoid the question.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Chris2048 5y ago

> inclusive down to people with a background on economics Who has such a qualification in this thread?

ACow_Adonis 5y ago
well, just for the record, I do, and I've also worked for the body that calculates our CPI. just before I left we were studying how to get what we call "administrative item data" from the retailer's themselves rather than relying on surveys, household interviews, internet scrapes or staff research. To be fair, CPI was never my specific methodology speciality, but I can talk your ear off about household incomes, relative welfare measures and theoretical probabilistic data linking and entity resolution :) (I've also had a finger in the pie of a lot of other measures even though I wouldn't call them my speciality, but I'll wager I've got more experience than 99.9% of hacker news in this regard). honestly, as someone who's had to put together official stats, I'm almost always disappointed to hear the conspiracy theories and methodology misunderstandings in the general and tech community. back in my day when the government wanted to do actual conspiracy they just cut the funding for measuring/recording something. but instead we get "CPI is rigged", "do you know what the REAL unemployment rate is" government-manipulation ignorant memes.