3 ms·

>People are acting like this guy is some sort of savant. And we have an extensive record that shows that he is one. >Congressional procedure is not even remot

>People are acting like this guy is some sort of savant. And we have an extensive record that shows that he is one. >Congressional procedure is not even remotely as complex as what you need to know to build an average office building [Citation needed]. Unless you're both a congressman and a construction worker, this is just an unqualified (i.e., worthless) opinion. In contrast, the opinion that this guy is some sort of savant is that of professional staff on the Hill (named in the article), and is, by definition, qualified. >But we're talking about knowledge that a 20 year old UK college student picked up in his spare time by watching TV and reading a few books You just described every historian which learns from primary sources. And "watching TV" is a very peculiar way to describe "watching live broadcasts of Congressional hearings and pouring through the archives". >Specifically it reveals how few national politicians, consultants, staffers, reporters, etc. in DC want to do boring-seeming work like reading a procedural manual and some history. "I refuse to acknowledge that a 20 year old can be exceptional, so I baselessly assert that literally everyone in the field must be stupid and inept instead" >The commentary on this Twitter account (including this article) says way more about the people commenting on it. Indeed it does. And to a larger extent than you seem to be aware of.

pdonis 3y ago
> the opinion that this guy is some sort of savant is that of professional staff on the Hill (named in the article), and is, by definition, qualified. "Qualified" based on their personal experience with what is apparently common practice for Congress and its staffers, yes. But that just means that the common practice for Congress and its staffers involves an appalling level of ignorance about the rules and procedures of the very institution they are working for. To run with the construction analogy, it's as if a bunch of structural engineers were calling a college student on Twitter who isn't even majoring in engineering a "savant" for having and sharing detailed knowledge of how to do load calculations to determine what size I-beams are required for a bridge or a building, based on reading the reference works that describe the details of those calculations. Yes, it would be impressive that a college student not majoring in engineering could gain such a detailed knowledge of structural engineering calculations in their spare time. But it would emphatically not be impressive for the people who are supposed to already have all that knowledge to be calling the college student a "savant".
- romwell 3y ago
  >But that just means that the common practice for Congress and its staffers involves an appalling level of ignorance about the rules and procedures of the very institution they are working for.& And what basis do you have to say that their "level of ignorance" is, indeed, "appalling"? Let me guess, it's the fact that they found the expertise of the 20-year-old useful, isn't it? Circular logic at its finest. >To run with the construction analogy,...* Oh, an unqualified (i.e. worthless) construction analogy, based on zero experience in subject matter. Great. An analogy can be used to clarify your point (which is unnecessary - it's clear enough), but in itself, it can't be used to argue your point is valid, because you have zero basis to say that this analogy applies. Maybe he's sharing the equivalent of I-beam sizes. Maybe he's sharing the equivalent of a Space X rocket blueprint. You don't know which analogy is applicable, because you are not an expert in the field and your opinion is unqualified. And nobody should be convinced by your argument, since it is supported only by the conclusion you're trying to arrive at.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > what basis do you have to say that their "level of ignorance" is, indeed, "appalling"? Um, the fact that they did not know the rules of their own institution? If you don't find that appalling, I gotta ask, why not? These are the people who run Congress. It's their job to know these things. > Circular logic at its finest. Not at all. Just applying common sense to what people who run an institution ought to know as part of their jobs. See above. > based on zero experience in subject matter. Um, actually, no, I have considerable experience in the construction industry. That's why I picked that particular analogy to run with: beacuse I do know what people whose job it is to do things like structural engineering calculations are expected to know, and I can compare that with what my common sense would expect people whose job it is to run Congress would be expected to know. > nobody should be convinced by your argument It seems to me that if anyone here is making arguments based on unwarranted assumptions and zero actual information, it's you.
    - romwell 3y ago
      >Um, the fact that they did not know the rules of their own institution? If you don't find that appalling, I gotta ask, why not? These are the people who run Congress. It's their job to know these things. I'd say that problem is that the rules are too obscure, unclear, complicated, and unsuited for the way they are used today. It is appalling that we are at that stage, but assuming that the rules are simple, and the staffers are inept is unwarranted. >Not at all. Just applying common sense to what people who run an institution ought to know as part of their jobs. See above. Ah, same common sense that would require any lawyer to just know all the laws and precedent. Similarly, every software engineer just knows the full spec of all programming languages, and in particular = C++, and would not ever need to resort to StackOverflow to look up or ask a question. It's just common sense! Wait, no, it isn't, and your entire argument boils down to "it's just common sense that I'm right!". For one, the US Congress is not a common institution, but even if it were, it's just common sense!" isn't even an argument. >Um, actually, no, I have considerable experience in the construction industry. The subject matter is congressional rules. You can talk about construction all day long, but your opinions on the subject matter are unqualified and based on zero experience (i.e. worthless). Again, you aren't even trying to present any basis for why the work of that 20-year-old isn't deep and complex. >It seems to me that if anyone here is making arguments based on unwarranted assumptions and zero actual information, it's you. It seems incorrectly. I am basing my opinions on the information presented in the article, and on the qualified opinions of the professionals in the field who, having many years of experience, do think that person is a savant. Also, a person quoted in the article commented in this very thread, saying essentially the same things as I said above [1]. So, I have a lot of basis for my assumptions, as well as actual information. You're welcome to peruse it. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39648859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39648859
Mathnerd314 3y ago
> > Congressional procedure is not even remotely as complex as what you need to know to build an average office building > [Citation needed]. We can just compare the books, per the article the Congressional procedures are 1000 pages and the International Building code is 832 pages https://shop.iccsafe.org/2021-international-building-coder.html https://shop.iccsafe.org/2021-international-building-coder.h.... So at first glance building seems easier. But then when you crack it open, you also need to read up on gas, mechanical, plumbing, fire, and energy efficiency, so there is an extra 200+186+270+692+302=1650 pages. So I think it is true - a Congressperson only needs one book, but to build an office building you need 6 books (and probably 6 people, each specialized in a book). Now building a residential house, that is the IRC which is roughly comparable in page count to Congress, and you do see house flipping businesses run by a single well-versed entrepreneur.
- romwell 3y ago
  >We can just compare the books, per the article the Congressional procedures are 1000 pages and the International Building code is 832 pages It keeps getting better! Coming next: judging the complexity, importance, and impact of code by line count alone.
IIAOPSW 3y ago
>"I refuse to acknowledge that a 20 year old can be exceptional, so I baselessly assert that literally everyone in the field must be stupid and inept instead" Why not both. An above average (but not savant) 20 year old who appears more exceptional than he is because the professional class he's being compared with really does have a lot of rot.
- romwell 3y ago
  >Why not both. Because there's no basis or evidence for the latter claim (hence, baseless). The justification "look how inept they are, they rely on a help of a 20-year old" is just circular reasoning, and nothing else has been presented.
  - defen 3y ago
    I think it's worthwhile to ask - in what other fields do exceptional people become consensus world-class experts after four years of part-time study?
    - romwell 3y ago
      It's rare in any field, that's why he's coonsidered a savant. But it's possible in many fields too - including mathematics[1][2][3], aerospace engineering [4][5], theoretical physics[6], computer science[7], etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Banach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Banach [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky [6] https://insidetheperimeter.ca/where-did-it-come-from-bose-lasers/ https://insidetheperimeter.ca/where-did-it-come-from-bose-la... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
    - debo_ 3y ago
      Javascript?

pdonis 3y ago

> the opinion that this guy is some sort of savant is that of professional staff on the Hill (named in the article), and is, by definition, qualified. "Qualified" based on their personal experience with what is apparently common practice for Congress and its staffers, yes. But that just means that the common practice for Congress and its staffers involves an appalling level of ignorance about the rules and procedures of the very institution they are working for. To run with the construction analogy, it's as if a bunch of structural engineers were calling a college student on Twitter who isn't even majoring in engineering a "savant" for having and sharing detailed knowledge of how to do load calculations to determine what size I-beams are required for a bridge or a building, based on reading the reference works that describe the details of those calculations. Yes, it would be impressive that a college student not majoring in engineering could gain such a detailed knowledge of structural engineering calculations in their spare time. But it would emphatically not be impressive for the people who are supposed to already have all that knowledge to be calling the college student a "savant".

romwell 3y ago
>But that just means that the common practice for Congress and its staffers involves an appalling level of ignorance about the rules and procedures of the very institution they are working for.& And what basis do you have to say that their "level of ignorance" is, indeed, "appalling"? Let me guess, it's the fact that they found the expertise of the 20-year-old useful, isn't it? Circular logic at its finest. >To run with the construction analogy,...* Oh, an unqualified (i.e. worthless) construction analogy, based on zero experience in subject matter. Great. An analogy can be used to clarify your point (which is unnecessary - it's clear enough), but in itself, it can't be used to argue your point is valid, because you have zero basis to say that this analogy applies. Maybe he's sharing the equivalent of I-beam sizes. Maybe he's sharing the equivalent of a Space X rocket blueprint. You don't know which analogy is applicable, because you are not an expert in the field and your opinion is unqualified. And nobody should be convinced by your argument, since it is supported only by the conclusion you're trying to arrive at.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > what basis do you have to say that their "level of ignorance" is, indeed, "appalling"? Um, the fact that they did not know the rules of their own institution? If you don't find that appalling, I gotta ask, why not? These are the people who run Congress. It's their job to know these things. > Circular logic at its finest. Not at all. Just applying common sense to what people who run an institution ought to know as part of their jobs. See above. > based on zero experience in subject matter. Um, actually, no, I have considerable experience in the construction industry. That's why I picked that particular analogy to run with: beacuse I do know what people whose job it is to do things like structural engineering calculations are expected to know, and I can compare that with what my common sense would expect people whose job it is to run Congress would be expected to know. > nobody should be convinced by your argument It seems to me that if anyone here is making arguments based on unwarranted assumptions and zero actual information, it's you.
  - romwell 3y ago
    >Um, the fact that they did not know the rules of their own institution? If you don't find that appalling, I gotta ask, why not? These are the people who run Congress. It's their job to know these things. I'd say that problem is that the rules are too obscure, unclear, complicated, and unsuited for the way they are used today. It is appalling that we are at that stage, but assuming that the rules are simple, and the staffers are inept is unwarranted. >Not at all. Just applying common sense to what people who run an institution ought to know as part of their jobs. See above. Ah, same common sense that would require any lawyer to just know all the laws and precedent. Similarly, every software engineer just knows the full spec of all programming languages, and in particular = C++, and would not ever need to resort to StackOverflow to look up or ask a question. It's just common sense! Wait, no, it isn't, and your entire argument boils down to "it's just common sense that I'm right!". For one, the US Congress is not a common institution, but even if it were, it's just common sense!" isn't even an argument. >Um, actually, no, I have considerable experience in the construction industry. The subject matter is congressional rules. You can talk about construction all day long, but your opinions on the subject matter are unqualified and based on zero experience (i.e. worthless). Again, you aren't even trying to present any basis for why the work of that 20-year-old isn't deep and complex. >It seems to me that if anyone here is making arguments based on unwarranted assumptions and zero actual information, it's you. It seems incorrectly. I am basing my opinions on the information presented in the article, and on the qualified opinions of the professionals in the field who, having many years of experience, do think that person is a savant. Also, a person quoted in the article commented in this very thread, saying essentially the same things as I said above [1]. So, I have a lot of basis for my assumptions, as well as actual information. You're welcome to peruse it. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39648859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39648859

Mathnerd314 3y ago

> > Congressional procedure is not even remotely as complex as what you need to know to build an average office building > [Citation needed]. We can just compare the books, per the article the Congressional procedures are 1000 pages and the International Building code is 832 pages https://shop.iccsafe.org/2021-international-building-coder.html https://shop.iccsafe.org/2021-international-building-coder.h.... So at first glance building seems easier. But then when you crack it open, you also need to read up on gas, mechanical, plumbing, fire, and energy efficiency, so there is an extra 200+186+270+692+302=1650 pages. So I think it is true - a Congressperson only needs one book, but to build an office building you need 6 books (and probably 6 people, each specialized in a book). Now building a residential house, that is the IRC which is roughly comparable in page count to Congress, and you do see house flipping businesses run by a single well-versed entrepreneur.

romwell 3y ago
>We can just compare the books, per the article the Congressional procedures are 1000 pages and the International Building code is 832 pages It keeps getting better! Coming next: judging the complexity, importance, and impact of code by line count alone.

IIAOPSW 3y ago

>"I refuse to acknowledge that a 20 year old can be exceptional, so I baselessly assert that literally everyone in the field must be stupid and inept instead" Why not both. An above average (but not savant) 20 year old who appears more exceptional than he is because the professional class he's being compared with really does have a lot of rot.

romwell 3y ago
>Why not both. Because there's no basis or evidence for the latter claim (hence, baseless). The justification "look how inept they are, they rely on a help of a 20-year old" is just circular reasoning, and nothing else has been presented.
- defen 3y ago
  I think it's worthwhile to ask - in what other fields do exceptional people become consensus world-class experts after four years of part-time study?
  - romwell 3y ago
    It's rare in any field, that's why he's coonsidered a savant. But it's possible in many fields too - including mathematics[1][2][3], aerospace engineering [4][5], theoretical physics[6], computer science[7], etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Banach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Banach [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky [6] https://insidetheperimeter.ca/where-did-it-come-from-bose-lasers/ https://insidetheperimeter.ca/where-did-it-come-from-bose-la... [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
  - debo_ 3y ago
    Javascript?