3 ms·

There are a bunch of questions, and some answers to these questions too. But one question-answer pair is missing. I can only ask the question: who are you?

melvinmelih 2y ago
Someone else had the same question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31815204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31815204
iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
This is a question that is not asked often enough lately. For better or worse, best predictor of human behavior is still what they have done in the past...
- lordgrenville 2y ago
  So many anonymous writers on Substack who seem to take pride in giving zero biographical information. Then they write geopolitical analysis or whatever with enormous confidence, frequently calling out the experts in the field as idiots. I guess they'd argue that the author's identity shouldn't matter and that one should just judge the writing on its own merit. The problem is that we're drowning in information. AI makes its trivial to generate authoritative-looking nonsense. Evaluation is costly. So I prefer to read something which the author has associated with their own identity (which means there's a cost to lying), or has provided some credentials to prove why their opinion matters. Of course there are exceptions (Gwern comes to mind), but I'll only trust them if they're recommended by other writers I trust.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
    I can accept some level of anonymity. Heavens know I would not want to have my current employer read some of the thoughts I post here, but one would think that when one poses as some sort of an expert or at least someone, who can offer a perspective, you would be able to get at least some sense that they might know what they are talking about. Too often at this point, I saw/heard/read things explained very confidently and yet missing the mark quite a bit.
    - f1shy 2y ago
      What you mean is “show me your credentials” or “show me the source of authority” I think is one of the first things I try to determine when somebody talks to me, when I see a blog, a video, or a comment in HN.
  - NotAnOtter 2y ago
    Agree a piece of informative media - in theory - should be taken on it's own merits alone. But to live in that world we would need to forgo the ability to make informed assumptions about how well thought out the media itself is. That's why research papers are intended to be read as though you don't know the author - it's purely data based & logical, any calls to background knowledge requires an explicit reference. That's just not practical in the real world.
  - darksaints 2y ago
    Pseudonyms are to opinions like incorporation is to businesses. It lets you take a risk without coming back to bite you personally. If you're right (or people like your opinions), you can gain a following with it. If you're wrong, you can always abandon your pseudonym. I don't necessarily think that's bad. I do it myself, by posting with usernames that are not directly attached to my own. But there is a certain amount of respect that I give to people that do things with their name attached. They take a risk that many in our society no longer do: they put their name and identity on the line with their opinions. Even public figures who are absolutely reprehensible in about every way possible get a tiny bit of respect from me for having their name attached to their shitty opinions.
  - 1832 2y ago
    >Then they write geopolitical analysis or whatever with enormous confidence, frequently calling out the experts in the field as idiots. Slightly OT, and of course only half anonymous but for example G.S. Bhogal really fits that bill. His posts come up here occasionally and I get a kick out of them but the real gold is in his twitter (1) Don't listen to the haters and make sure to follow for quality life advice (like don't listen to politicians and journalists because they're all corrupt liars, or that "below average IQ" people should reproduce as to not spread their genes, and the really smart people don't need friends or go outside, what they need a "circle" of other highly intelligent people like themselves on X (1) https://x.com/G_S_Bhogal https://x.com/G_S_Bhogal
- f1shy 2y ago
  > best predictor of human behavior is still what they have done in the past I do not agree. I’m not sure in which context you are saying that. But that implies people never change, never learn, never get better. Specially that phrase is used in HR, what is terrible. There are traits that are hard to change, and things that hardly change, as there are lots of things that do change. That all being said, I’m totally with you, that the question has to be asked, but not to put the people in a box and never move them. Just to have a reference point in a changing curve.
  - iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
    << I do not agree. Ok. I accept that you do not accept my personal opinion. << I’m not sure in which context you are saying that. There are multiple reasons, but speaking from perspective of crime statistics ( and I don't even mean in US, where once you are in the system, it is actively working to keep you in its grasp ), recidivism[1] is common even among prisoners, where the system actively tries to rehabilitate you[2]. I don't want to belabor that point too much though as people tend to take it as a political stance ( and it is not ). That said, those do translate to other less extreme forms of behavior. << But that implies people never change, never learn, never get better. No, it is a common misconception. Going from the original recidivism claim, the rate of recidivism is not 100%, but it is high enough that it gives people pause[2]. In other words, never is never the right or accurate claim here. I can start with more likely yes than not and take it from there if it makes you more comfortable to quibble over details. << Specially that phrase is used in HR, what is terrible. HR is terrible. No disagreement. I have no control over HR or their phraseology. << There are traits that are hard to change, and things that hardly change, as there are lots of things that do change. You may be confusing things a little, but maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Do you want to elaborate? << but not to put the people in a box and never move them. Yes. I accept the concern about being labeled even though you did not voice it. That said, the box remains a box. No amount of language will change its boxy nature. Things just are. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism [2]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis...

melvinmelih 2y ago

Someone else had the same question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31815204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31815204

iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago

This is a question that is not asked often enough lately. For better or worse, best predictor of human behavior is still what they have done in the past...

lordgrenville 2y ago
So many anonymous writers on Substack who seem to take pride in giving zero biographical information. Then they write geopolitical analysis or whatever with enormous confidence, frequently calling out the experts in the field as idiots. I guess they'd argue that the author's identity shouldn't matter and that one should just judge the writing on its own merit. The problem is that we're drowning in information. AI makes its trivial to generate authoritative-looking nonsense. Evaluation is costly. So I prefer to read something which the author has associated with their own identity (which means there's a cost to lying), or has provided some credentials to prove why their opinion matters. Of course there are exceptions (Gwern comes to mind), but I'll only trust them if they're recommended by other writers I trust.
- iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
  I can accept some level of anonymity. Heavens know I would not want to have my current employer read some of the thoughts I post here, but one would think that when one poses as some sort of an expert or at least someone, who can offer a perspective, you would be able to get at least some sense that they might know what they are talking about. Too often at this point, I saw/heard/read things explained very confidently and yet missing the mark quite a bit.
  - f1shy 2y ago
    What you mean is “show me your credentials” or “show me the source of authority” I think is one of the first things I try to determine when somebody talks to me, when I see a blog, a video, or a comment in HN.
- NotAnOtter 2y ago
  Agree a piece of informative media - in theory - should be taken on it's own merits alone. But to live in that world we would need to forgo the ability to make informed assumptions about how well thought out the media itself is. That's why research papers are intended to be read as though you don't know the author - it's purely data based & logical, any calls to background knowledge requires an explicit reference. That's just not practical in the real world.
- darksaints 2y ago
  Pseudonyms are to opinions like incorporation is to businesses. It lets you take a risk without coming back to bite you personally. If you're right (or people like your opinions), you can gain a following with it. If you're wrong, you can always abandon your pseudonym. I don't necessarily think that's bad. I do it myself, by posting with usernames that are not directly attached to my own. But there is a certain amount of respect that I give to people that do things with their name attached. They take a risk that many in our society no longer do: they put their name and identity on the line with their opinions. Even public figures who are absolutely reprehensible in about every way possible get a tiny bit of respect from me for having their name attached to their shitty opinions.
- 1832 2y ago
  >Then they write geopolitical analysis or whatever with enormous confidence, frequently calling out the experts in the field as idiots. Slightly OT, and of course only half anonymous but for example G.S. Bhogal really fits that bill. His posts come up here occasionally and I get a kick out of them but the real gold is in his twitter (1) Don't listen to the haters and make sure to follow for quality life advice (like don't listen to politicians and journalists because they're all corrupt liars, or that "below average IQ" people should reproduce as to not spread their genes, and the really smart people don't need friends or go outside, what they need a "circle" of other highly intelligent people like themselves on X (1) https://x.com/G_S_Bhogal https://x.com/G_S_Bhogal
f1shy 2y ago
> best predictor of human behavior is still what they have done in the past I do not agree. I’m not sure in which context you are saying that. But that implies people never change, never learn, never get better. Specially that phrase is used in HR, what is terrible. There are traits that are hard to change, and things that hardly change, as there are lots of things that do change. That all being said, I’m totally with you, that the question has to be asked, but not to put the people in a box and never move them. Just to have a reference point in a changing curve.
- iugtmkbdfil834 2y ago
  << I do not agree. Ok. I accept that you do not accept my personal opinion. << I’m not sure in which context you are saying that. There are multiple reasons, but speaking from perspective of crime statistics ( and I don't even mean in US, where once you are in the system, it is actively working to keep you in its grasp ), recidivism[1] is common even among prisoners, where the system actively tries to rehabilitate you[2]. I don't want to belabor that point too much though as people tend to take it as a political stance ( and it is not ). That said, those do translate to other less extreme forms of behavior. << But that implies people never change, never learn, never get better. No, it is a common misconception. Going from the original recidivism claim, the rate of recidivism is not 100%, but it is high enough that it gives people pause[2]. In other words, never is never the right or accurate claim here. I can start with more likely yes than not and take it from there if it makes you more comfortable to quibble over details. << Specially that phrase is used in HR, what is terrible. HR is terrible. No disagreement. I have no control over HR or their phraseology. << There are traits that are hard to change, and things that hardly change, as there are lots of things that do change. You may be confusing things a little, but maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Do you want to elaborate? << but not to put the people in a box and never move them. Yes. I accept the concern about being labeled even though you did not voice it. That said, the box remains a box. No amount of language will change its boxy nature. Things just are. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism [2]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis...