6 ms·

Totally agree, but how would you go about categorizing ideas into those that are worthy of equivalency and those that aren’t? Seems easy enough for fringe consp

• toofy 4y ago
  > but how would you go about categorizing ideas into those that are worthy of equivalency and those that aren’t? obviously this is one of the most complicated questions that would require actual libraries full of books and experienced actual experts to properly come to any solid conclusions, but my suspicions are that some of the pieces that would be important would circle around: - we start by recognizing that most of us are dumb in most areas. if we're lucky, we have expertise in one or two areas. if we're really lucky, peers in our field will publicly recognize our expertise. outside of our areas of expertise, compared to the experts in those fields, we're dumb. and thats ok. comparatively im an idiot in fluid dynamics, soil sciences, and millions and millions of other areas. i might have some hobby level interests, but compared to recognized experts in those fields, im an idiot. collectively we seem to have forgotten our limitations. i mean, the old phrase is there for a reason: the smartest person is the one who recognizes what they don't know. - i dont know shit about anesthesiology, if an algorithm weights my comment discussing anesthesiology with the same weight as an actual widely peer-respected anesthesiologist, something is _severely_ broken. this type of thing is happening across the board. - often, more speech is not necessarily better. if the more speech is all nonsense babble, the conversation is just DDOSed and the situation is absolutely worse. as yishan said in that incredible HN post the other day [1], its about managing signal-noise. if its just simply "more" speech, we end up with noise. - if we've already collectively decided that 2+2=4, yet someone keeps screaming they're not convinced, maybe its ok to ignore them. i can't tell you how many times ive seen people's arguments get thoroughly dismantled, then we'll see them screaming the exact same arguments an hour later pretending the dismantling didn't happen. - this is gonna be a hard pill to swallow for many but, when we're building something with social as the primary, we _need_ to have _more_ people deeply involved in the building process who have expertise in humans. people who understand the human condition. some of us don't understand people very well and its absurd how many of us (myself included) turn our noses up when our projects involve human complexities. could you imagine a party planner building a bridge without heavily including engineers? this is a hard problem, but the very first place id start is, no, not all of our opinions have equal weight in all topics. i know how difficult that is for some people to take. but its just true. [1] https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1586955288061452289 https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1586955288061452289
  • 8note 4y ago
    > i can't tell you how many times ive seen people's arguments get thoroughly dismantled, then we'll see them screaming the exact same arguments an hour later pretending the dismantling didn't happen. There's no modern cannon to these arguments and their discussion, so the dismantling basically didn't happen. Only the readers of that dismantling know about it
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • awb 4y ago
    > i dont know shit about anesthesiology, if an algorithm weights my comment discussing anesthesiology with the same weight as an actual widely peer-respected anesthesiologist, something is _severely_ broken. this type of thing is happening across the board. Facts are one type of content, but what about these types of prompts? * An an anesthesiologist walks into a bar… * I’d rather be an anesthesiologist than a … * My recent experience with an anesthesiologist was … * Can someone please explain why an anesthesiologist … Also, the problem with a peer-reviewed domain expert approach is that if we took a collection of randomly sampled domain experts from 100 years ago, many might have opinions and theories about their own area of expertise that we consider abhorrent or factually wrong today. It’s only through loudly questioning those enshrined, institutional beliefs that we make progress. And often times those questions are raised by those folks that experience the outcome of those theories. It’s one thing to be a peer reviewed domain expert operating in the realm of controlled studies and intellectual thought. It’s another to be a human being with one life to live, who’s on the receiving / implementation end of these theories.