3 ms·

>Don't take a (strong) position on something you don't understand or have equally strong evidence for. ...or else what? We all live in a world of specializati

by Zetice 3y ago

>Don't take a (strong) position on something you don't understand or have equally strong evidence for. ...or else what? We all live in a world of specialization certainly, but we also live in a world where we must make decisions with imperfect information. This idea of "only take positions on things you fully understand" is a luxury that isn't practical when you realize how frequently (and rapidly) those decisions must be made. One thing that matters even more than nuance is execution, and a not-so-great idea executed extremely well is much better than a super well researched and understood idea that didn't get executed at all because the person with it took forever getting to that level of understanding. There is, as in all things, a middle ground. Take positions, make decisions, but accept you'll be wrong decently often, and that's okay.

godelski 3y ago
> ...or else what? I'm not sure how to answer this without sounding rude. But you'll make a fool of yourself if you do, put people at risk, and probably lose money. Considering the other context of your post, I'm not quite sure where your disagreement is. I specify _strong_ as a qualifier to indicate that the strength of the opinion/position (your confidence) should be proportional to your knowledge/understanding/evidence. I explicitly state that having opinions is perfectly fine and would go even further to say that it is impossible to be absolutely devoid of them. Human brains just make conclusions. To clarify my point, I'm saying that being an armchair expert is not helping anyone. Having some armchair expertise is perfectly fine, but arguing from that position (especially passionately) is generally unhelpful and just adds noise. These are the common posts that you see where someone responds with a very simple explanation that is rather incomplete. You'll often see these highly upvoted as well and better answers buried simply due to their length. The laziness hurts us all! It is better to build habits and communal acceptability to just shut up a lot of times, as the problem with information retrieval is often about accessibility not availability; noise decreases accessibility due to the additional information we must sort through. If armchair comments are given (and they can be helpful, especially on vague topics or where no other level of expertise is present), then admission often helps the person receiving the information as well as creates the ability for better communication to determine higher quality information as well as better allow a more informed specialist to append or correct the basic answer. The problem we see is not the existence of these armchair expert answers but rather that they are done so with high levels of confidence and the authors often feel the need to defend them, including against actual experts. Corrections or additions are not a critique to one's self, just the knowledge that was laid forth (which is often anonymous, so identity/self-value should play a lower role, but doesn't). Being wrong is not just okay, but should be welcomed as nerds we pride ourselves on being "smart" which means we pride ourselves on _gaining_ knowledge. Not everything needs to be a debate and honestly it is in general a terrible way to acquire or disseminate information.
- Zetice 3y ago
  I just want you to understand that you're coming across as if you want people not to discuss most things in their lives, because as you say, we're hardly experts on most things. Being wrong is completely okay, and trying to police what people discuss with one another is a dark road to go down. Besides, where do you draw the line? Do I need a specific number of course hours completed? Some number of books read? Three or more articles published on the topic? Discussion, particularly in writing, is a form of thinking, and thinking with others is infinitely more productive than thinking alone, so if what you're asking is for folks to stop thinking about topics they're not experts on, I'm sorry but no. That's not going to happen.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > I just want you to understand that you're coming across as if you want people not to discuss most things in their lives, because as you say, we're hardly experts on most things. Thank you. If you have any suggestions as to how to make my point clearer, I'd greatly appreciate it. I hope it is clear now, but obviously I can always improve. I do want to promote discussions, but that also means wanting to decrease arguments. Especially arguments that are uninformed and ones which has a clear answer (or lack of) from the domain experts. Where to draw the line of domain expertise is not clear, you're right. Academia is one example of a way to pass that line but I wouldn't say the only means as it is just a method that correlates with sufficient knowledge gain. But I also wouldn't say that watching some YouTube videos does not constitute expertise (more explicitly, videos by science communicators rather than lectures). The boundary is fuzzy, but that should put pressure to reduce confidence (which is good for science and truth seeking) rather than increase it. Discussion is not only fine, but actively encouraged. We're having one right now and at least on my side I don't feel like this is a argumentative. I tried to clarify this previously but I guess this is difficult. I'm not sure how to make myself more clear so all I can do is ask that you read more carefully with the updated knowledge that there's a substantial amount that I agree with you on (differences are in finer points) and request that you point out specifically where what I said may be confusing or resulted in misinterpretation. Hoping that this can facilitate a better discussion, if you still wish to have one.

by Zetice 3y ago

godelski 3y ago

> ...or else what? I'm not sure how to answer this without sounding rude. But you'll make a fool of yourself if you do, put people at risk, and probably lose money. Considering the other context of your post, I'm not quite sure where your disagreement is. I specify _strong_ as a qualifier to indicate that the strength of the opinion/position (your confidence) should be proportional to your knowledge/understanding/evidence. I explicitly state that having opinions is perfectly fine and would go even further to say that it is impossible to be absolutely devoid of them. Human brains just make conclusions. To clarify my point, I'm saying that being an armchair expert is not helping anyone. Having some armchair expertise is perfectly fine, but arguing from that position (especially passionately) is generally unhelpful and just adds noise. These are the common posts that you see where someone responds with a very simple explanation that is rather incomplete. You'll often see these highly upvoted as well and better answers buried simply due to their length. The laziness hurts us all! It is better to build habits and communal acceptability to just shut up a lot of times, as the problem with information retrieval is often about accessibility not availability; noise decreases accessibility due to the additional information we must sort through. If armchair comments are given (and they can be helpful, especially on vague topics or where no other level of expertise is present), then admission often helps the person receiving the information as well as creates the ability for better communication to determine higher quality information as well as better allow a more informed specialist to append or correct the basic answer. The problem we see is not the existence of these armchair expert answers but rather that they are done so with high levels of confidence and the authors often feel the need to defend them, including against actual experts. Corrections or additions are not a critique to one's self, just the knowledge that was laid forth (which is often anonymous, so identity/self-value should play a lower role, but doesn't). Being wrong is not just okay, but should be welcomed as nerds we pride ourselves on being "smart" which means we pride ourselves on _gaining_ knowledge. Not everything needs to be a debate and honestly it is in general a terrible way to acquire or disseminate information.

Zetice 3y ago
I just want you to understand that you're coming across as if you want people not to discuss most things in their lives, because as you say, we're hardly experts on most things. Being wrong is completely okay, and trying to police what people discuss with one another is a dark road to go down. Besides, where do you draw the line? Do I need a specific number of course hours completed? Some number of books read? Three or more articles published on the topic? Discussion, particularly in writing, is a form of thinking, and thinking with others is infinitely more productive than thinking alone, so if what you're asking is for folks to stop thinking about topics they're not experts on, I'm sorry but no. That's not going to happen.
- godelski 3y ago
  > I just want you to understand that you're coming across as if you want people not to discuss most things in their lives, because as you say, we're hardly experts on most things. Thank you. If you have any suggestions as to how to make my point clearer, I'd greatly appreciate it. I hope it is clear now, but obviously I can always improve. I do want to promote discussions, but that also means wanting to decrease arguments. Especially arguments that are uninformed and ones which has a clear answer (or lack of) from the domain experts. Where to draw the line of domain expertise is not clear, you're right. Academia is one example of a way to pass that line but I wouldn't say the only means as it is just a method that correlates with sufficient knowledge gain. But I also wouldn't say that watching some YouTube videos does not constitute expertise (more explicitly, videos by science communicators rather than lectures). The boundary is fuzzy, but that should put pressure to reduce confidence (which is good for science and truth seeking) rather than increase it. Discussion is not only fine, but actively encouraged. We're having one right now and at least on my side I don't feel like this is a argumentative. I tried to clarify this previously but I guess this is difficult. I'm not sure how to make myself more clear so all I can do is ask that you read more carefully with the updated knowledge that there's a substantial amount that I agree with you on (differences are in finer points) and request that you point out specifically where what I said may be confusing or resulted in misinterpretation. Hoping that this can facilitate a better discussion, if you still wish to have one.