6 ms·

"You are wrong because of things you cannot know" - impossible to argue with, not very useful. (Disclaimer: I don't know Kathy Sierra, or rather, the first time

by Tichy 14y ago

"You are wrong because of things you cannot know" - impossible to argue with, not very useful. (Disclaimer: I don't know Kathy Sierra, or rather, the first time I heard about her was when she quit blogging, I think, because of that vile stream of hate spam. I have nothing against her, in fact I believe what people said at the time, that she made great contributions before leaving).

erikpukinskis 14y ago
|"You are wrong because of things you cannot know" - impossible to argue with, not very useful. This is not debate team. The point is not to frame the discussion so you can "win". Whether you want to admit it, there are things you can never know. That's incontrovertible. You have two choices: you can throw your hands in the air and say "oh well I'll never know" or you can start to learn how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you, and use their knowledge to help you act in the world. Many very bright people are constitutionally incapable of working this way. Unless they can reduce a concept down to first principles that are grounded in their personal experience, the concept is wrong to them. To me, that's a huge epistemological limitation, and I think it will hamper your ability to grow intellectually. I have found that with certain things I had to first accept them and live with them, after someone I trust and respect, with different experience than I have, suggested they were true. Only later, after living with and applying the ideas, was I able to rationalize them. This realization is the greatest gift Feminist theory has given me, as a thinker.
- Tichy 14y ago
  I think you don't have to believe theory x to experience it first, though. You can also just try it out - "assume that x is true, what are the consequences". I think a person's own experience should always form the bottom line of their world view, though. Otherwise you simply get completely lost. How do you know whom to believe? There will always be people claiming contradicting things. Ultimately you have to at least trust yourself. At least I have drawn that line for myself at some point. I still take into account that I could be wrong, but to sway me, more is required than a mere "believe me, I have more experience than you". Of course there are also things where it doesn't really matter. Not every decision questions my whole world view. If I work together with somebody more experiences and they say "let's stick to Postgres instead of using MongoDB" or whatever, I have no problems following their advice (I would then perhaps try MongoDB on another, less risky occasion).
- aurynn 14y ago
  Wow. This just crystallised a bunch of thoughts bumping around in my head, on why this argument goes around and around all the time. Thank you! This was a great comment.
- philwelch 14y ago
  > Whether you want to admit it, there are things you can never know. That's incontrovertible. You have two choices: you can throw your hands in the air and say "oh well I'll never know" or you can start to learn how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you, and use their knowledge to help you act in the world. That's the exact same argument my dad gave me once about why I should just trust Bush when he wanted to start a war with Iraq so badly. It was even credible, since Bush got classified intelligence reports every morning and I didn't. Needless to say, I no longer trust it. > I have found that with certain things I had to first accept them and live with them, after someone I trust and respect, with different experience than I have, suggested they were true. Only later, after living with and applying the ideas, was I able to rationalize them. I believe this tactic is traditionally known as "theology". In both cases, it's reassuring to finally see a confession that feminism is an exercise in blind faith, and is hence of no use to rational people.
  - KuraFire 14y ago
    You’re coming to the exact opposite, wrong conclusions here. 1) in the trust-Bush example, anyone who actually, properly learned “how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you” would have sensed that Bush was full of shit, didn’t know what he was doing, and was a terrible person to have in charge. Honing that skill is incredibly valuable in life, precisely because it protects you from having to blindly trust anyone based on a claim (accurate or not) that they know what they're doing. 2) This is not theology at all. Theology is about accepting a claim despite your inability to rationalize it, or accepting it precisely because your ability to rationalize it is broken or flawed—and both being in the realm of deities. What erikpukinskis was describing is the process of cultivating empathy and trust, in face of the acknowledgement that your perceived reality is not necessarily accurate (which it isn’t for anyone on the planet). He's saying that there are a lot of smart people who simply cannot believe that “something” is truly happening if they have no personal experience with that “something”, and may, as a result, deny the reality that is that “something”. And he’s saying that, for him at least, it was necessary to learn to accept these things as true, first, before being able to figure out and rationalize them on his own, later, without having to be personally exposed to the problem for it. And that’s called empathy, not theology.
nmcfarl 14y ago
The problem with life, or at least my life, is that I go through it wrong because of things I can not know. I can't argue with it, I can't know when I'm wrong and when I'm not, and I can't know when I know enough to make any particular decision. (Particularly the last - the number of times I've thought, this is a trivial problem, with a trivial solution, and been proven completely wrong is just huge). I just assume: "I know as much as I do at this moment", and I make decisions as best as I can. And then I keep learning, and deciding. This argument ("You are wrong because of things you cannot know") is not one which should make you feel bad about your decisions (or change them), it's one that should encourage you to go elsewhere to learn more about the subject - if you care, and you believe the speaker.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  I don't think "You are wrong because of things you cannot know" encourages people to seek knowledge, but rather the opposite. If I cannot know something, why should I waste my time on it?
  - roguecoder 14y ago
    Try listening? If you are wrong because of things you cannot know from personal experience, as long as your opinions are formed from personal experience they will be incorrect. So, seek out other people's experiences even if, especially if, they conflict with your own. Though now I'm starting to sound like a stoner. "Broaden your mind, dude..."
- krichman 14y ago
  But actually, that argument is applied whenever someone disagrees with popular opinion, instantly silencing them even if they presented their ideas rationally. It's nothing more than an ad hominem argument.
strathmeyer 14y ago
I think it's even more fun to think about the premise that I should forget about all the times I've been passed over for a job or education because of my gender just because some people I would never work with are jerks.
- Tichy 14y ago
  I have missed that bit, where did she write that?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- Tichy 14y ago
  I think it is unfair and invalid argumentation (which doesn't prove that her claims are untrue, but also imo doesn't help support them). The analogue is parents saying "you'll understand it when you are older". Either you trust your parents or you don't, but you can not verify that claim logically while you are young. Hence I find that kind of thing not useful for a debate. Traditionally I think those statements have only helped to make kids angry :-) You may say that parents were usually right, but I don't think so. KS or anybody else are welcome to state their own experience, but arguing "I was like you before my eyes were opened" is creating a fake additional anecdote. Just because person A went from opinion/situation X to opinion Z, it doesn't imply that all people with opinion/situation X will eventually come around to opinion Z. That line of reasoning just dismisses a persons argument without giving arguments. Sorry I can't describe it better - I guess it just goes against my sensibilities for "fair debate". Just my opinion, obviously.
  - andrewcooke 14y ago
    sorry - deleted my comment before i saw your reply. decided i didn't want to get into this mess. for anyone wondering what the context was, the basic point was that it is extra information and so is useful.
  - KSierra 14y ago
    I told my personal story in a comment to Laura, which I then sent to Faruk. That's not a "fake additional anecdote", it is what actually happened. It means no more -- or less -- than that. Just one person's story. That I changed MY views in no way means anyone else will. Had I thought this through, I would not have written it because you're absolutely right -- it was not useful.
    - codeka 14y ago
      I definitely think it was useful and thank you for writing it. I understand the point that its like saying "you'll understand when you're older", but I also hope we here are wiser than the children who resent their parents for making that argument. That we in fact can see that its possible to be blind to what is happening around you just because you personally haven't experienced it.
KSierra 14y ago
What I actually said was that I was wrong, and that "just because you don't perceive it doesn't mean it isn't there." That's not quite the same as saying "you were wrong." And I also didn't say "because of things you cannot know." Yes, there WERE things that I -- and perhaps others -- cannot know, but I also had plenty of evidence I was ignoring because it didn't fit my personal experience. There were studies, stats, research, and yes -- an overwhelming number of personal anecdotes from too many credible women for me to have ignored the possibility for that long. I still do not know how pervasive or deep the problems of sexism are -- this is not a domain I have studied. But I was wrong to have used my sole personal experience as evidence that there wasn't really a problem.
- tabrischen 14y ago
  As a fellow female in technology, I just want to say you are a beautiful woman (not that it's relevant or if that matters or anything, I just feel like I have to say it) and your amazing contribution to the field as well as your humility despite all that is incredibly inspiring. I'm sorry that you(or anyone for that matter) had to go through what you went through. I want to thank you for keep speaking up for women who may not have the voice to speak up themselves and I hope you continue to do so and because you never know who you may reach with your writing.
- Tichy 14y ago
  It seems to me you drew analogies between her and you, from the initial state of "seeing no problem at all", and then you realizing that you simply didn't see it. That to me sounds as if you were implying that just like you, she simply doesn't see it and there she is wrong, analogous to the way you were wrong. Also her article doesn't sound to me as if she claims that there is no problem, just that it is obviously not a problem for every woman.
  - KuraFire 14y ago
    Laura eventually made it clear that she wasn’t claiming there is no problem, but she did it so poorly that a huge number of people who read her post didn’t get that from it. Similarly, I (original Primer author) did a poor job making it clear that I never meant to suggest that every woman has this problem. The goal was to inform people that this is happening and this is a problem, even though you _probably were not seeing it_. Kathy’s experience and post are a very personal revelation of the painful journey of discovery (of this fact) that she went through.
anthonyb 14y ago
Why do you need to "argue" with it? I read it as more of a precautionary tale: don't immediately dismiss something because you haven't seen it happen first hand, or it's not an issue within your immediate circle.
- Tichy 14y ago
  I don't think Laura dismissed anything, she just pointed out that the problem is not as universal as some make it out to be. The response by KS to me boiled down to "just wait, it'll happen to you, too", essentially claiming that it does effect everyone after all. I intend in no way to diminish KS' personal experience, it just seemed odd as a response (to me anyway). To put it into an extreme example: I think it must be possible to say "I have never been raped" without being accused of claiming that nobody has ever been raped.
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    Considering Kathy's history, I think she probably has a bit more experience with harassment than either you or Laura. Given that, isn't it a bit strange that you're dismissing her opinion out of hand? > To put it into an extreme example Please don't.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      I am not dismissing her experience, just the notion that because she has more experience, other, "lesser" opinions are invalid. Also, I suppose Laura has more experience with not being harassed, so why dismiss her opinion out of hand? Anyway, this one is not going to be resolved by logic... Do you really believe that every woman will experience harassment eventually?
      - anthonyb 14y ago
        It's statistically very likely.
        14y ago
rayiner 14y ago
The fact that it's difficult to argue with doesn't make it not true.
- Tichy 14y ago
  Impossible to argue with, and no it doesn't make it not true, but also not true.

by Tichy 14y ago

erikpukinskis 14y ago

|"You are wrong because of things you cannot know" - impossible to argue with, not very useful. This is not debate team. The point is not to frame the discussion so you can "win". Whether you want to admit it, there are things you can never know. That's incontrovertible. You have two choices: you can throw your hands in the air and say "oh well I'll never know" or you can start to learn how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you, and use their knowledge to help you act in the world. Many very bright people are constitutionally incapable of working this way. Unless they can reduce a concept down to first principles that are grounded in their personal experience, the concept is wrong to them. To me, that's a huge epistemological limitation, and I think it will hamper your ability to grow intellectually. I have found that with certain things I had to first accept them and live with them, after someone I trust and respect, with different experience than I have, suggested they were true. Only later, after living with and applying the ideas, was I able to rationalize them. This realization is the greatest gift Feminist theory has given me, as a thinker.

Tichy 14y ago
I think you don't have to believe theory x to experience it first, though. You can also just try it out - "assume that x is true, what are the consequences". I think a person's own experience should always form the bottom line of their world view, though. Otherwise you simply get completely lost. How do you know whom to believe? There will always be people claiming contradicting things. Ultimately you have to at least trust yourself. At least I have drawn that line for myself at some point. I still take into account that I could be wrong, but to sway me, more is required than a mere "believe me, I have more experience than you". Of course there are also things where it doesn't really matter. Not every decision questions my whole world view. If I work together with somebody more experiences and they say "let's stick to Postgres instead of using MongoDB" or whatever, I have no problems following their advice (I would then perhaps try MongoDB on another, less risky occasion).
aurynn 14y ago
Wow. This just crystallised a bunch of thoughts bumping around in my head, on why this argument goes around and around all the time. Thank you! This was a great comment.
philwelch 14y ago
> Whether you want to admit it, there are things you can never know. That's incontrovertible. You have two choices: you can throw your hands in the air and say "oh well I'll never know" or you can start to learn how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you, and use their knowledge to help you act in the world. That's the exact same argument my dad gave me once about why I should just trust Bush when he wanted to start a war with Iraq so badly. It was even credible, since Bush got classified intelligence reports every morning and I didn't. Needless to say, I no longer trust it. > I have found that with certain things I had to first accept them and live with them, after someone I trust and respect, with different experience than I have, suggested they were true. Only later, after living with and applying the ideas, was I able to rationalize them. I believe this tactic is traditionally known as "theology". In both cases, it's reassuring to finally see a confession that feminism is an exercise in blind faith, and is hence of no use to rational people.
- KuraFire 14y ago
  You’re coming to the exact opposite, wrong conclusions here. 1) in the trust-Bush example, anyone who actually, properly learned “how to sense when other people have a depth of knowledge or experience that is unavailable to you” would have sensed that Bush was full of shit, didn’t know what he was doing, and was a terrible person to have in charge. Honing that skill is incredibly valuable in life, precisely because it protects you from having to blindly trust anyone based on a claim (accurate or not) that they know what they're doing. 2) This is not theology at all. Theology is about accepting a claim despite your inability to rationalize it, or accepting it precisely because your ability to rationalize it is broken or flawed—and both being in the realm of deities. What erikpukinskis was describing is the process of cultivating empathy and trust, in face of the acknowledgement that your perceived reality is not necessarily accurate (which it isn’t for anyone on the planet). He's saying that there are a lot of smart people who simply cannot believe that “something” is truly happening if they have no personal experience with that “something”, and may, as a result, deny the reality that is that “something”. And he’s saying that, for him at least, it was necessary to learn to accept these things as true, first, before being able to figure out and rationalize them on his own, later, without having to be personally exposed to the problem for it. And that’s called empathy, not theology.

nmcfarl 14y ago

The problem with life, or at least my life, is that I go through it wrong because of things I can not know. I can't argue with it, I can't know when I'm wrong and when I'm not, and I can't know when I know enough to make any particular decision. (Particularly the last - the number of times I've thought, this is a trivial problem, with a trivial solution, and been proven completely wrong is just huge). I just assume: "I know as much as I do at this moment", and I make decisions as best as I can. And then I keep learning, and deciding. This argument ("You are wrong because of things you cannot know") is not one which should make you feel bad about your decisions (or change them), it's one that should encourage you to go elsewhere to learn more about the subject - if you care, and you believe the speaker.

jlgreco 14y ago
I don't think "You are wrong because of things you cannot know" encourages people to seek knowledge, but rather the opposite. If I cannot know something, why should I waste my time on it?
- roguecoder 14y ago
  Try listening? If you are wrong because of things you cannot know from personal experience, as long as your opinions are formed from personal experience they will be incorrect. So, seek out other people's experiences even if, especially if, they conflict with your own. Though now I'm starting to sound like a stoner. "Broaden your mind, dude..."
krichman 14y ago
But actually, that argument is applied whenever someone disagrees with popular opinion, instantly silencing them even if they presented their ideas rationally. It's nothing more than an ad hominem argument.

strathmeyer 14y ago

I think it's even more fun to think about the premise that I should forget about all the times I've been passed over for a job or education because of my gender just because some people I would never work with are jerks.

Tichy 14y ago
I have missed that bit, where did she write that?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Tichy 14y ago
I think it is unfair and invalid argumentation (which doesn't prove that her claims are untrue, but also imo doesn't help support them). The analogue is parents saying "you'll understand it when you are older". Either you trust your parents or you don't, but you can not verify that claim logically while you are young. Hence I find that kind of thing not useful for a debate. Traditionally I think those statements have only helped to make kids angry :-) You may say that parents were usually right, but I don't think so. KS or anybody else are welcome to state their own experience, but arguing "I was like you before my eyes were opened" is creating a fake additional anecdote. Just because person A went from opinion/situation X to opinion Z, it doesn't imply that all people with opinion/situation X will eventually come around to opinion Z. That line of reasoning just dismisses a persons argument without giving arguments. Sorry I can't describe it better - I guess it just goes against my sensibilities for "fair debate". Just my opinion, obviously.
- andrewcooke 14y ago
  sorry - deleted my comment before i saw your reply. decided i didn't want to get into this mess. for anyone wondering what the context was, the basic point was that it is extra information and so is useful.
- KSierra 14y ago
  I told my personal story in a comment to Laura, which I then sent to Faruk. That's not a "fake additional anecdote", it is what actually happened. It means no more -- or less -- than that. Just one person's story. That I changed MY views in no way means anyone else will. Had I thought this through, I would not have written it because you're absolutely right -- it was not useful.
  - codeka 14y ago
    I definitely think it was useful and thank you for writing it. I understand the point that its like saying "you'll understand when you're older", but I also hope we here are wiser than the children who resent their parents for making that argument. That we in fact can see that its possible to be blind to what is happening around you just because you personally haven't experienced it.

KSierra 14y ago

What I actually said was that I was wrong, and that "just because you don't perceive it doesn't mean it isn't there." That's not quite the same as saying "you were wrong." And I also didn't say "because of things you cannot know." Yes, there WERE things that I -- and perhaps others -- cannot know, but I also had plenty of evidence I was ignoring because it didn't fit my personal experience. There were studies, stats, research, and yes -- an overwhelming number of personal anecdotes from too many credible women for me to have ignored the possibility for that long. I still do not know how pervasive or deep the problems of sexism are -- this is not a domain I have studied. But I was wrong to have used my sole personal experience as evidence that there wasn't really a problem.

tabrischen 14y ago
As a fellow female in technology, I just want to say you are a beautiful woman (not that it's relevant or if that matters or anything, I just feel like I have to say it) and your amazing contribution to the field as well as your humility despite all that is incredibly inspiring. I'm sorry that you(or anyone for that matter) had to go through what you went through. I want to thank you for keep speaking up for women who may not have the voice to speak up themselves and I hope you continue to do so and because you never know who you may reach with your writing.
Tichy 14y ago
It seems to me you drew analogies between her and you, from the initial state of "seeing no problem at all", and then you realizing that you simply didn't see it. That to me sounds as if you were implying that just like you, she simply doesn't see it and there she is wrong, analogous to the way you were wrong. Also her article doesn't sound to me as if she claims that there is no problem, just that it is obviously not a problem for every woman.
- KuraFire 14y ago
  Laura eventually made it clear that she wasn’t claiming there is no problem, but she did it so poorly that a huge number of people who read her post didn’t get that from it. Similarly, I (original Primer author) did a poor job making it clear that I never meant to suggest that every woman has this problem. The goal was to inform people that this is happening and this is a problem, even though you _probably were not seeing it_. Kathy’s experience and post are a very personal revelation of the painful journey of discovery (of this fact) that she went through.

anthonyb 14y ago

Why do you need to "argue" with it? I read it as more of a precautionary tale: don't immediately dismiss something because you haven't seen it happen first hand, or it's not an issue within your immediate circle.

Tichy 14y ago
I don't think Laura dismissed anything, she just pointed out that the problem is not as universal as some make it out to be. The response by KS to me boiled down to "just wait, it'll happen to you, too", essentially claiming that it does effect everyone after all. I intend in no way to diminish KS' personal experience, it just seemed odd as a response (to me anyway). To put it into an extreme example: I think it must be possible to say "I have never been raped" without being accused of claiming that nobody has ever been raped.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  Considering Kathy's history, I think she probably has a bit more experience with harassment than either you or Laura. Given that, isn't it a bit strange that you're dismissing her opinion out of hand? > To put it into an extreme example Please don't.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    I am not dismissing her experience, just the notion that because she has more experience, other, "lesser" opinions are invalid. Also, I suppose Laura has more experience with not being harassed, so why dismiss her opinion out of hand? Anyway, this one is not going to be resolved by logic... Do you really believe that every woman will experience harassment eventually?
    - anthonyb 14y ago
      It's statistically very likely.
      - 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

The fact that it's difficult to argue with doesn't make it not true.

Tichy 14y ago
Impossible to argue with, and no it doesn't make it not true, but also not true.