4 ms·

reddit is a system where a guy with 100 IQ decides what is best for all, it isn't that suprising that it doesn't work well for anything more complex or nouanced

LordDragonfang 4y ago
I have to wonder whether the average IQ on reddit is higher or lower than the general population average, because based on my experience there, I could see arguments for either direction.
- monkeybutton 4y ago
  With 50M DAU its going to be the population average, no?
  - dan-robertson 4y ago
    There’s surely still some selection effects, eg younger (average iq scores have gone up over time), college-educated, more literate (ok this one is questionable for Reddit), and so on.
- nathias 4y ago
  I'm sure its average, but the self-reported IQ might be way higher ...
LeifCarrotson 4y ago
Where 100 guys with 100 IQ decide what is best for all, which may or may not be better than one guy with 120.
- walkhour 4y ago
  This is indeed the relevant question. There are similar scenarios where the answer is the 100 guys, like some markets, that when organized centrally by "smart" people, they stop working.
- nathias 4y ago
  For contexts that can be exploited to benefit the one guy at the expense of other for sure. For contexts where there is no downside it depends, its good for broad research, bad for in depth content. The problem is there are hardly any places for the latter type of content anymore, because reddit took over with its subreddits that seem good fit for nieches and the price wasn't apparent in advance ...
insightcheck 4y ago
It's clear in hindsight, but a high school student with little life experience who sees a long text post with hundreds of upvotes and a couple awards can be an easy mark. It's especially difficult because there is actually good advice mixed with the bad and unsubstantiated. I've taken good advice from certain comments (e.g. that led to the discovery of open courseware and actually quality resources on physical exercise programs). But part of maturity is learning to be skeptical of advice independent of upvotes, so one can get the good advice while avoiding getting mislead. To answer quick questions, I try to search for articles from reputable newspapers first (to see if a verified expert interviewed by a journalist is quoted at length) and possibly HN's archives via Googling with site:news.ycombinator.com. For more complex questions and topics, I try to find book recommendations from Reddit that were written by academics or low-profile experts over influencers, and then reading about the topic at length (e.g. it's usually far better to learn about big social problems if curious through well-sourced books, versus any hot takes online, regardless of the popularity of these hot takes).
- clairity 4y ago
  > "To answer quick questions, I try to search for articles from reputable newspapers first (to see if a verified expert interviewed by a journalist is quoted at length)..." you just failed your own test. "reputable" and "expert" indicate you're offloading evaluation to others rather than doing the hard work yourself of discerning the validity or plausibility of those claims.
  - insightcheck 4y ago
    Sure, but there's not enough time to be an expert at everything. Let's say I want to better understand how worried I should be about the US economy. I could study economics textbooks, take online courses, and get a part-time degree in economics over hundreds of hours, read economics papers from journals and the NBER (and equivalent institutions), develop a reputation and a network of experts, and then develop my own analysis and debate with these experts. Alternatively, I could accept that I'm a non-expert for this particular domain, read some in-depth analyses in the Financial Times (a better source than Reddit), realize I should be cautious and save more, and move on with my life. If the subject is more important, e.g. I want to work on a months-long project that requires an understanding of a specific economic concept, it would be useful to search for reputable books related to that topic and then study them.
concinds 4y ago
Agreed. In general: 1) Successful people tend to be found in selective environments. A website that lets anyone in will by definition be filled with junk, bored people, teens, and time-wasters. Since 'successful people' know this, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy (they know their peers aren't there). 2) Most professional peer connections are still offline. Want to know what your peers think about a recent paper? If you're established in your field you'll know them on a first-name basis and will just call them. Twitter is the only exeption to both these rules, miraculously, though only to a degree.

LordDragonfang 4y ago

I have to wonder whether the average IQ on reddit is higher or lower than the general population average, because based on my experience there, I could see arguments for either direction.

monkeybutton 4y ago
With 50M DAU its going to be the population average, no?
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  There’s surely still some selection effects, eg younger (average iq scores have gone up over time), college-educated, more literate (ok this one is questionable for Reddit), and so on.
nathias 4y ago
I'm sure its average, but the self-reported IQ might be way higher ...

LeifCarrotson 4y ago

Where 100 guys with 100 IQ decide what is best for all, which may or may not be better than one guy with 120.

walkhour 4y ago
This is indeed the relevant question. There are similar scenarios where the answer is the 100 guys, like some markets, that when organized centrally by "smart" people, they stop working.
nathias 4y ago
For contexts that can be exploited to benefit the one guy at the expense of other for sure. For contexts where there is no downside it depends, its good for broad research, bad for in depth content. The problem is there are hardly any places for the latter type of content anymore, because reddit took over with its subreddits that seem good fit for nieches and the price wasn't apparent in advance ...

insightcheck 4y ago

It's clear in hindsight, but a high school student with little life experience who sees a long text post with hundreds of upvotes and a couple awards can be an easy mark. It's especially difficult because there is actually good advice mixed with the bad and unsubstantiated. I've taken good advice from certain comments (e.g. that led to the discovery of open courseware and actually quality resources on physical exercise programs). But part of maturity is learning to be skeptical of advice independent of upvotes, so one can get the good advice while avoiding getting mislead. To answer quick questions, I try to search for articles from reputable newspapers first (to see if a verified expert interviewed by a journalist is quoted at length) and possibly HN's archives via Googling with site:news.ycombinator.com. For more complex questions and topics, I try to find book recommendations from Reddit that were written by academics or low-profile experts over influencers, and then reading about the topic at length (e.g. it's usually far better to learn about big social problems if curious through well-sourced books, versus any hot takes online, regardless of the popularity of these hot takes).

clairity 4y ago
> "To answer quick questions, I try to search for articles from reputable newspapers first (to see if a verified expert interviewed by a journalist is quoted at length)..." you just failed your own test. "reputable" and "expert" indicate you're offloading evaluation to others rather than doing the hard work yourself of discerning the validity or plausibility of those claims.
- insightcheck 4y ago
  Sure, but there's not enough time to be an expert at everything. Let's say I want to better understand how worried I should be about the US economy. I could study economics textbooks, take online courses, and get a part-time degree in economics over hundreds of hours, read economics papers from journals and the NBER (and equivalent institutions), develop a reputation and a network of experts, and then develop my own analysis and debate with these experts. Alternatively, I could accept that I'm a non-expert for this particular domain, read some in-depth analyses in the Financial Times (a better source than Reddit), realize I should be cautious and save more, and move on with my life. If the subject is more important, e.g. I want to work on a months-long project that requires an understanding of a specific economic concept, it would be useful to search for reputable books related to that topic and then study them.

concinds 4y ago

Agreed. In general: 1) Successful people tend to be found in selective environments. A website that lets anyone in will by definition be filled with junk, bored people, teens, and time-wasters. Since 'successful people' know this, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy (they know their peers aren't there). 2) Most professional peer connections are still offline. Want to know what your peers think about a recent paper? If you're established in your field you'll know them on a first-name basis and will just call them. Twitter is the only exeption to both these rules, miraculously, though only to a degree.