3 ms·
> some people are better than others, the evidence is there by how some people are more successful than other people Better at what though? Success doesn’t tel
by meheleventyone 3y ago
> some people are better than others, the evidence is there by how some people are more successful than other people
Better at what though? Success doesn’t tell you why someone was successful.
The point of looking at larger sets of data is to learn something tangible beyond anecdote.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoyou cannot find causation in data, only correlation with an attempt to identify the causation. it's another version of cargo cult programming. The data suggests if a plane is present, food will come. We want food to come, lets build a plane, with no real understanding of where the food actually comes from. > Better at what though? whatever the fuck it is you're trying to evaluate. Are you evaluating musical aptitude? then the answer to your question is that some people are better at music. are you evaluating the ability to tear down an engine? then the answer to your question is that some people are better at tearing down an engine. Linus Torvalds opinion on kernel development is not equivalent to that 16 year old web developer. Dismissing opinions as "small sample value" _completely_ misses the forest for the trees.
- meheleventyone 3y agoFinding correlation in data is how we find out about the real world though. There are extra steps needed there but let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Otherwise we should just jack in science which AFAIK has been a spectacularly successful project. And it’s actually this study of collected data that will defeat cargo cults when their hypothesis doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It’s only reliance on presumed experts and anecdotal evidence that shores them up. From the original cargo cults to conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones to software orthodoxy like TDD, SOLID and Scrum. Likewise anecdotal success of an individual is also just correlation but with only a single data point. I’d also agree that expert opinions are great but they’re also not infallible or necessarily generalisable. Nor is it necessarily easy to tell who is an expert and who is a charlatan. Which is why we should use them as the basis for investigating the larger picture. Similarly both expert opinion and singular anecdotes can lead to cargo culting.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago> let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. hmmmmmmmmmmm. > Likewise anecdotal success of an individual is also just correlation but with only a single data point. oh yeah, someone should tell Linus Torvalds that his expertise is just correlation. Same with Elon Musk, Bill Gates, et al.
- meheleventyone 3y agoCare to have another go without intentionally being misleading about what I actually wrote. Otherwise I don’t think there’s much point in engaging with you.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoI quoted you, if you didn't mean it, don't say it.
- meheleventyone 3y agoSnipping out parts of sentences and replying to them out of context to the whole is misrepresentation. In particular your replies don’t make any sense in relation to the rest that you conveniently left out. I dunno what you think that achieves but enjoy arguing with yourself I guess!
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agonone of what you're calling context clarified the stance that expertise is just correlation with a single data point. "oh but I think expert opinions are great!" doesn't actually change that stance, whether you think they're great or not is irrelevant to the claim. Your problem is putting everything into data terms. stop doing that and suddenly your problems with my responses go away because I stop calling it out as ridiculous.