4 ms·

Actual people rarely argue to some kind of platonic ideal. And the author of the post clearly indicates that he didn't bother to inform this person that he had

Actual people rarely argue to some kind of platonic ideal. And the author of the post clearly indicates that he didn't bother to inform this person that he had expertise that he considers relevant. Elsewhere he also kind of shits on using "terms of art". But those "terms of art" are useful shorthand to experts, establishing that both sides are experts and familiar with the field, and more rapidly communicating information with less words. That strongly makes me suspect that the problem is one of communication. The author then asserts that the argument from authority makes him dismiss the expert. Well, that's just the fallacy-fallacy[1] and is no more relevant. The expert can still be 100% right and you can be 100% wrong, and they can be using a logical fallacy and all you can really conclude is that they're a bit of a dick about it. You can't ascertain truth. If you want to have productive discourse with that expert, you might ask yourself why they're being a bit of a dick about it, and if you've done anything to warrant that breakdown in communication on a /social/ level rather than intellectual-technical level. Or the person may just be a dick. And they might still be a dick and be wrong, we can't really tell. But really from reading that paragraph all I gather is that there was certainly a breakdown in communication, and that it reflects negatively on the author that he assumes he's right because of it. And there's a certain amount of hypocrisy apparent in his conclusion. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

mewpmewp2 3y ago
If I use the "terms of art" or I say that I'm really, very experienced in this particular subject, this won't allow me to check whether they are the type of person to rather subscribe to authority or whether they would try to understand the arguments themselves. An intellectually honest person wouldn't need to know that someone is an expert to be able to understand the arguments of a person in the field that they, themselves are an expert in. If someone is able to come to good conclusions without using terms of art, I could either be impressed, because they come to it on their own, or otherwise they are also the type of person to not subscribe to authority, and would intentionally bring up ideas using uncommon words, without making it obvious. Overall these as far as I can understand are either internet or social arguments which are not to work on some common business or otherwise goal, but it's more to understand the character and intelligence of the person, to identify whether they are the type of person that can be trusted to have good faith in those arguments. At work, or if oriented towards some sort of business goal, I'm going to make sure that what I say or argue will be towards a productive goal for everyone in the group. But if it's for the sake of understanding - like I believe many internet arguments - which I think are actually great that we can anonymously argue with people to gain better understanding are, I think it's important to consider arguments, and even better if they use unusual terms to explain the viewpoint from another perspective - it should be interesting if someone sees things with other terms from a completely other viewpoint - but only if you are actually well understood in the field. If you get frustrated by this, to me it's not about being a dick, it just implies they are not truly passionate or understanding of the area and may be insecure about it. Because you would only be a "dick" if you are insecure, because being a dick could only work out for you in this scenario if you really don't know the subject as well as you might think.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  > If you get frustrated by this, to me it's not about being a dick, it just implies they are not truly passionate or understanding of the area and may be insecure about it. Or they may just not have the patience for 99% of the people who aren't part of their field and want to comment on it. For example, a climate scientist is generally better off aggressively ignoring the 1000th person they've run into who wants to have an argument about if variability of the sun is responsible for climate change or something like that. Unless they're actually a science educator it isn't a good use of their time. And this very article -- on how easy it is to get to 95th percentile in anything -- is a good example of this. The >99.99th percentile Overwatch player shouldn't be spending their time explaining to people that "you should stand on the objective". That is a waste of their time. People in the 95th percentile should be doing that explaining because that's a 1:20 ratio instead of a 1:1000 ratio. So experts have heuristics to stop the millions of people out there from wasting their time, because to them they don't owe you anything. Without some kind of contractual relationship they're triaging their time based on the fact that you've paid them nothing and they owe you nothing. You have to in some way be significantly worthwhile to them. That isn't an indication of being "not truly passionate" or being "insecure". That's just the inherent problem of having expertise and being at the 99.99th percentile of something, which is that lots of <95th percentile people out there are going to have pretty dumb questions better suited to being answered by those in the 95th percentile and there just isn't enough time in the world for the 99.99th percentile to spend all their time on everyone who wants to chat them up. There are some people out there with the patience of saints who will explain to absolutely everyone, at their level, and always have time for others. But they're going to probably be passionate about education, and likely retired or nearing the end of their career. For most people, it is entirely normal for people to not give you their time BECAUSE they're passionate about what they're not and just not passionate about YOU. You can change that by establishing that you're really one of the >95 percentilers (again as we've seen in this article that can just be the engaged amateur), which makes you much more worth their time and they'll get more out of it as you'll probably get more out of it. Hiding the fact that you have expertise hides that information from the expert and that isn't helping their heuristics, and you can't really blame them for that.

mewpmewp2 3y ago

If I use the "terms of art" or I say that I'm really, very experienced in this particular subject, this won't allow me to check whether they are the type of person to rather subscribe to authority or whether they would try to understand the arguments themselves. An intellectually honest person wouldn't need to know that someone is an expert to be able to understand the arguments of a person in the field that they, themselves are an expert in. If someone is able to come to good conclusions without using terms of art, I could either be impressed, because they come to it on their own, or otherwise they are also the type of person to not subscribe to authority, and would intentionally bring up ideas using uncommon words, without making it obvious. Overall these as far as I can understand are either internet or social arguments which are not to work on some common business or otherwise goal, but it's more to understand the character and intelligence of the person, to identify whether they are the type of person that can be trusted to have good faith in those arguments. At work, or if oriented towards some sort of business goal, I'm going to make sure that what I say or argue will be towards a productive goal for everyone in the group. But if it's for the sake of understanding - like I believe many internet arguments - which I think are actually great that we can anonymously argue with people to gain better understanding are, I think it's important to consider arguments, and even better if they use unusual terms to explain the viewpoint from another perspective - it should be interesting if someone sees things with other terms from a completely other viewpoint - but only if you are actually well understood in the field. If you get frustrated by this, to me it's not about being a dick, it just implies they are not truly passionate or understanding of the area and may be insecure about it. Because you would only be a "dick" if you are insecure, because being a dick could only work out for you in this scenario if you really don't know the subject as well as you might think.

lamontcg 3y ago
> If you get frustrated by this, to me it's not about being a dick, it just implies they are not truly passionate or understanding of the area and may be insecure about it. Or they may just not have the patience for 99% of the people who aren't part of their field and want to comment on it. For example, a climate scientist is generally better off aggressively ignoring the 1000th person they've run into who wants to have an argument about if variability of the sun is responsible for climate change or something like that. Unless they're actually a science educator it isn't a good use of their time. And this very article -- on how easy it is to get to 95th percentile in anything -- is a good example of this. The >99.99th percentile Overwatch player shouldn't be spending their time explaining to people that "you should stand on the objective". That is a waste of their time. People in the 95th percentile should be doing that explaining because that's a 1:20 ratio instead of a 1:1000 ratio. So experts have heuristics to stop the millions of people out there from wasting their time, because to them they don't owe you anything. Without some kind of contractual relationship they're triaging their time based on the fact that you've paid them nothing and they owe you nothing. You have to in some way be significantly worthwhile to them. That isn't an indication of being "not truly passionate" or being "insecure". That's just the inherent problem of having expertise and being at the 99.99th percentile of something, which is that lots of <95th percentile people out there are going to have pretty dumb questions better suited to being answered by those in the 95th percentile and there just isn't enough time in the world for the 99.99th percentile to spend all their time on everyone who wants to chat them up. There are some people out there with the patience of saints who will explain to absolutely everyone, at their level, and always have time for others. But they're going to probably be passionate about education, and likely retired or nearing the end of their career. For most people, it is entirely normal for people to not give you their time BECAUSE they're passionate about what they're not and just not passionate about YOU. You can change that by establishing that you're really one of the >95 percentilers (again as we've seen in this article that can just be the engaged amateur), which makes you much more worth their time and they'll get more out of it as you'll probably get more out of it. Hiding the fact that you have expertise hides that information from the expert and that isn't helping their heuristics, and you can't really blame them for that.