3 ms·

> The correct approach is to assume that people bear no ill will -- I believe that is even part of the posting guidelines. It is, but intent is distinct from c

> The correct approach is to assume that people bear no ill will -- I believe that is even part of the posting guidelines. It is, but intent is distinct from correctness. I can believe that everyone is commenting in good faith and stating their honest beliefs, but that is little help when commenters take contrary positions and I would like to determine who is correct despite not being knowledgeable myself. Under those circumstances, authorship is a useful signal. It doesn't need to be the sole determining factor, of course, but it's better than nothing.

mgaunard 3y ago
I don't personally believe in using people's fame as a proxy for assessing correctness. I think it best to make your own opinion based on the arguments presented to you. Sure, someone may convincingly say wrong things, and you might end up believing them, but then it's up to you to develop your own ability to see through bullshit (of which there is a lot in the tech space, especially when you get close to VCs).
- aw1621107 3y ago
  > I don't personally believe in using people's fame as a proxy for assessing correctness. I'd hope most people would agree with you, since fame is not the same as expertise. A well-known author who happens to talk about a subject they are knowledgeable about can be worth paying attention to, but the same author talking about a completely different field may (should?) warrant more skepticism. Authorship can be a useful signal, but that doesn't mean it is always a useful signal. > but then it's up to you to develop your own ability to see through bullshit I mean, yes, that is ideal, but unfortunately but not all BS is equally detectable. Sometimes it really does take intimate knowledge to know someone is incorrect, and achieving that for everything just is not realistic for most, if not all, people.

mgaunard 3y ago

I don't personally believe in using people's fame as a proxy for assessing correctness. I think it best to make your own opinion based on the arguments presented to you. Sure, someone may convincingly say wrong things, and you might end up believing them, but then it's up to you to develop your own ability to see through bullshit (of which there is a lot in the tech space, especially when you get close to VCs).

aw1621107 3y ago
> I don't personally believe in using people's fame as a proxy for assessing correctness. I'd hope most people would agree with you, since fame is not the same as expertise. A well-known author who happens to talk about a subject they are knowledgeable about can be worth paying attention to, but the same author talking about a completely different field may (should?) warrant more skepticism. Authorship can be a useful signal, but that doesn't mean it is always a useful signal. > but then it's up to you to develop your own ability to see through bullshit I mean, yes, that is ideal, but unfortunately but not all BS is equally detectable. Sometimes it really does take intimate knowledge to know someone is incorrect, and achieving that for everything just is not realistic for most, if not all, people.