12 ms·
I'm 100% guilty of this. I try not to be, but hey. There's different levels: 1. The guy who reads the title of the journal article. 2. The guy who reads the
by karaterobot 3y ago
I'm 100% guilty of this. I try not to be, but hey.
There's different levels:
1. The guy who reads the title of the journal article.
2. The guy who reads the abstract of the journal article.
3. The guy who reads the text of the article.
4. The guy who's read all the other significant research in the field and can put it in context alongside their own personal experience as a practitioner.
I'm #2, and I strive to be #3. It's really hard to be #4, especially for more than one domain.
- not_enoch_wise 3y agoThat’s why I skip even reading the title, and get right to mocking other commenters.
- jrflowers 3y agoA true Posting Elemental needs no context to ply their trade
- wolverine876 3y ago> Posting Elemental Is that a thing or did you make it up?
- jrflowers 3y agoMade it up
- wolverine876 3y agoIt should be a thing. Thanks.
- quickthrower2 3y ago#2.5 someone who lets Karpathy explain it all :-)
- antisthenes 3y ago#3 is pretty orthogonal. There's a reason abstracts exist, and they usually provide enough information as to whether the paper discovered any significant findings, so whether it's worth reading at all. If you are #1, #2 and in #2 you include reading not just the paper but the meta-analysis papers of the field, that already puts you ahead of 95% of the general public. Not even scientists themselves are full #3 people. It's just impossible, considering the amount of work that exists in the field, and considering that most studies just confirm existing findings from 10-20-50 years ago.
- riccardomc 3y agoYou claim you're a #2.5 which is intermediate. So according to the article you might very well be an overconfident #1, instead... You should probably add a "5. don't know" option and check that one...
- jrflowers 3y ago#3.5: The guy who skims the text of the article with just enough effort and time to be proven correct about their opinion of the article’s title This is an incredibly common guy
- naniwaduni 3y ago0.5. The guy who reads the press release for the journal article! (0.2. The guy who reads the title of the news article for the journal article on HN and proceeds straight to the comment section...)
- moffkalast 3y ago0.1. Guy who reads the edited HN title and makes an offhand joke in the comments without even reading any other comments.
- thefurdrake 3y ago0.01 Guy who reads someone else's comment and assumes their offhand joke means they didn't read any of the other comments.
- gus_massa 3y agoI read the title, skim the abstract and jump directly to the tables/graphics. There is a lot of bullshit in the introduction and conclusions.
- shostack 3y agoI'm not a scientist, I'm in digital media and ads, but I've been doing this for almost 20 years and feel confident in my level of technical and business knowledge of the space. I never realized how wrong papers could be until I read some from my industry and dug into their methodology of which I'm sufficiently knowledgeable to spot issues. I don't recall specifics as it was a while ago but I do recall the district impression I was left with which amounted to "holy crap, I wouldn't let this person pull reports on my ad account let alone run campaigns" due to the buy side 101 mistakes they made. Since then I read all scientific papers with a huge heaping of salt.
- ramblenode 3y ago2.5. The guy who reads the abstract then skips to the figures.