5 ms·

I don't understand how articles like this get upvoted. Who is getting value from this? This reads like some generic LinkedIn CEO post that sounds deep on the s

I don't understand how articles like this get upvoted. Who is getting value from this? This reads like some generic LinkedIn CEO post that sounds deep on the surface but actually means nothing.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
It seems to make its point pretty clearly to me: "just naysay" is a strategy that is extremely effective/accurate in many domains, but provides no actual value compared to people attempting more honest evaluations or predictions. I just realized it's possible I'm being whooshed by your comment.
- slothtrop 5y ago
  I don't think he's being meta, just obtuse.
- ummonk 5y ago
  Well he also claims that the rock has higher Brier scores than all the futurists, which would imply that in this example the futurists aren't actually adding any value with their attempts at honest evaluations and predictions.
scoofy 5y ago
I mean, this is a weird example, but i feel like it's like Scott Auckerman says in Comedy Bang Bang, when he introduces the show. He'll do the welcome, and explain the show, and inevitably some guess will retort that this is silly, since everyone knows what the show is about, but he constantly responds with: "every episode is somebody's first episode." These ideas that should be obvious to anyone who's studied advanced statistics, or formal logic, or read some books about extreme events, all likely already know, but the fact is, not everyone... better yet most people have not every studied these things. These ideas are inherently interesting, and every year, there are new people coming of age that are introduced to these interesting ideas via an article like this, and then it'll get upvotes. The world is like a fire hose of young people. Add in a popular author who will likely get attention anyway, and here we are at the top of the feed.
- yupper32 5y ago
  But it's not interesting, it's not introducing anyone to advanced statistics or formal logic, it's not showing any real world uses that can be applied by anyone coming of age. It's just generalized parables by someone not in any of the fields or positions mentioned, some weak conclusions, and a "Heuristics That Almost Always Works" book title.
  - scoofy 5y ago
    I mean most people I know that are "very smart people" including myself regularly exercise the cool customer vibe of "yea right, that'll never happen." I think it's a good parable. I mean, it's not really important, and I didn't learn anything, but it's a good reminder that "probably not" is a lot different than "definitely not."
    - nickelpro 5y ago
      It's only a good parable if you don't follow the author to the conclusion. The heuristics almost always work. Full stop. You should listen to them, because they almost always work. You should not in any case work off the assumption that you're in the 0.01% of the time that the heuristic is wrong. You will get surprised 0.01% of the time, and that's fine. If you don't follow the heuristic you'll be surprised far more often by way of being wrong. This gets further weighted by costs. If the cost of a false negative is high and the cost of a false positive is nothing, always assume the positive and do whatever is required: check the window, palpitate the whatever, etc. You are certain it is nothing, but the cost of being wrong is so high that you do it anyway. The author's whimsical point about needing people who buy into fairy-tales isn't useful or valid. You make these decisions based mostly on the costs of being right and wrong, and within that you assume things based on the stats of occurring.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    > by someone not in any of the fields or positions mentioned Author is an MD (doctor)...
pjc50 5y ago
Everyone thinks they're the person who's right that 1% of the time about the thing everyone else is conservatively wrong about.
honkdaddy 5y ago
For some context, Scott Siskind (of SlateStarCodex fame) has been a favorite blogger of this site for years, though admittedly this isn't one of his stronger pieces. Some of Scott's observations are super profound and enlightening, some of them are a bit more obvious. I enjoy his prose, so I tend to at least skim nearly everything he posts.
aan1092j 5y ago
I'm with you. SSC posts are high on rhetoric and low on actual conceptual knowledge/insights. The examples are ridiculously long and somewhat contrived. s.
aspaceman 5y ago
> This reads like some generic LinkedIn CEO post that sounds deep on the surface but actually means nothing. I felt exactly the opposite. In my career as an engineer I regularly encounter experts who claim to be so, but offer no qualifications or expertise. Having the ability to respond to this type of stuff is valuable. In my personal life, I've felt that many therapists exhibit this exact response. They choose to give heuristics and platitudes because, often times, they work. But it means they are giving up the expertise which they claim possession of. I'm reminded of quite the childish thing by this article: "With great power comes great responsibility." If you claim to be an expert, you need to actually be an expert. I consider this the social contract of expertise and prestige.

I don't understand how articles like this get upvoted. Who is getting value from this? This reads like some generic LinkedIn CEO post that sounds deep on the surface but actually means nothing.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

It seems to make its point pretty clearly to me: "just naysay" is a strategy that is extremely effective/accurate in many domains, but provides no actual value compared to people attempting more honest evaluations or predictions. I just realized it's possible I'm being whooshed by your comment.

slothtrop 5y ago
I don't think he's being meta, just obtuse.
ummonk 5y ago
Well he also claims that the rock has higher Brier scores than all the futurists, which would imply that in this example the futurists aren't actually adding any value with their attempts at honest evaluations and predictions.

scoofy 5y ago

I mean, this is a weird example, but i feel like it's like Scott Auckerman says in Comedy Bang Bang, when he introduces the show. He'll do the welcome, and explain the show, and inevitably some guess will retort that this is silly, since everyone knows what the show is about, but he constantly responds with: "every episode is somebody's first episode." These ideas that should be obvious to anyone who's studied advanced statistics, or formal logic, or read some books about extreme events, all likely already know, but the fact is, not everyone... better yet most people have not every studied these things. These ideas are inherently interesting, and every year, there are new people coming of age that are introduced to these interesting ideas via an article like this, and then it'll get upvotes. The world is like a fire hose of young people. Add in a popular author who will likely get attention anyway, and here we are at the top of the feed.

yupper32 5y ago
But it's not interesting, it's not introducing anyone to advanced statistics or formal logic, it's not showing any real world uses that can be applied by anyone coming of age. It's just generalized parables by someone not in any of the fields or positions mentioned, some weak conclusions, and a "Heuristics That Almost Always Works" book title.
- scoofy 5y ago
  I mean most people I know that are "very smart people" including myself regularly exercise the cool customer vibe of "yea right, that'll never happen." I think it's a good parable. I mean, it's not really important, and I didn't learn anything, but it's a good reminder that "probably not" is a lot different than "definitely not."
  - nickelpro 5y ago
    It's only a good parable if you don't follow the author to the conclusion. The heuristics almost always work. Full stop. You should listen to them, because they almost always work. You should not in any case work off the assumption that you're in the 0.01% of the time that the heuristic is wrong. You will get surprised 0.01% of the time, and that's fine. If you don't follow the heuristic you'll be surprised far more often by way of being wrong. This gets further weighted by costs. If the cost of a false negative is high and the cost of a false positive is nothing, always assume the positive and do whatever is required: check the window, palpitate the whatever, etc. You are certain it is nothing, but the cost of being wrong is so high that you do it anyway. The author's whimsical point about needing people who buy into fairy-tales isn't useful or valid. You make these decisions based mostly on the costs of being right and wrong, and within that you assume things based on the stats of occurring.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  > by someone not in any of the fields or positions mentioned Author is an MD (doctor)...

pjc50 5y ago

Everyone thinks they're the person who's right that 1% of the time about the thing everyone else is conservatively wrong about.

honkdaddy 5y ago

For some context, Scott Siskind (of SlateStarCodex fame) has been a favorite blogger of this site for years, though admittedly this isn't one of his stronger pieces. Some of Scott's observations are super profound and enlightening, some of them are a bit more obvious. I enjoy his prose, so I tend to at least skim nearly everything he posts.

aan1092j 5y ago

I'm with you. SSC posts are high on rhetoric and low on actual conceptual knowledge/insights. The examples are ridiculously long and somewhat contrived. s.

aspaceman 5y ago

> This reads like some generic LinkedIn CEO post that sounds deep on the surface but actually means nothing. I felt exactly the opposite. In my career as an engineer I regularly encounter experts who claim to be so, but offer no qualifications or expertise. Having the ability to respond to this type of stuff is valuable. In my personal life, I've felt that many therapists exhibit this exact response. They choose to give heuristics and platitudes because, often times, they work. But it means they are giving up the expertise which they claim possession of. I'm reminded of quite the childish thing by this article: "With great power comes great responsibility." If you claim to be an expert, you need to actually be an expert. I consider this the social contract of expertise and prestige.