3 ms·

This. I used to attribute it to douchiness, and sometimes it can be. Some people seem to feel the need to flaunt some kind of (mostly imaginary) superiority ove

This. I used to attribute it to douchiness, and sometimes it can be. Some people seem to feel the need to flaunt some kind of (mostly imaginary) superiority over others. That said, the curse of knowledge is also a good explanation. Some people just assume it is common knowledge because for them and others they talk with it is, so when they encounter someone that doesn't know it, it is easy to think "they must be an idiot". I have heard countless people express this exact sentiment (privately) when so and so doesn't know X, which is odd, since the set of all things one is not an expert in / knowledgeable about generally contains many different Xs.

overgryphon 13y ago
It's laziness. Instead of recognizing that everyone got where they are now by a different path where they learned different things and appreciating the diversity of knowledge that creates, it's so much easier to say, you should have known that.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  It's laziness, and it's also lack of empathy.
  - yzhengyu 13y ago
    I have observed that it is far easier to naturally empathise with one who has many similarities to you rather than empathise with another who is radically different from you. The latter actually requires conscious effort.
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      As you note, it's not easy. Nevertheless I believe it is effort well spent.
  - loup-vaillant 13y ago
    Nevertheless, it's natural. People expect short inferential distances[1]. In plain speak, we tend to intuitively assume that a piece of knowledge is either common knowledge, or easily explainable from common knowledge. Like: "there's a tiger behind the bushes!". Not everyone knows that, since the tiger is difficult to spot. Everyone however knows what a tiger looks like, and what danger or source of food it represents. So, anyone who doesn't understand that sentence is an idiot. Conversely, if someone who tells you that stars are Balls of Gas Burning Billions Miles away[2] is plain crazy… unless it's your which doctor, of course. That one knows ways you don't. Except that the last two paragraphs are now bullshit. A few centuries ago (very recently, by evolutionary standards), our world became more complicated, and our instincts haven't quite caught up yet. Laziness? Lack of empathy? Yeah, sure. But the effort required to expect the inferential distances we actually have to deal with is very real. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if that last paragraph fell short for anyone who isn't familiar with the LessWrong Sequences[3]. Sorry. [1]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Inferential_distance http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Inferential_distance [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZDk1cbKp7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZDk1cbKp7s [3]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences
  - spiffytech 13y ago
    It's not really either of these things. The curse of expertise in a field is you live and breathe stuff so deeply for so long that you forget what it's like to not be an expert in your field. You forget what non-experts, or bystanders, don't know, because it's hard to remember a time when you didn't know these things. Computer people are notorious for having trouble explaining technical issues to computer-illiterates for this exact reason. It's not that their unempathetic - they are trying to explain so that the conversant understands, after all - but rather, they've been experts for so long, they forget which technical terms the conversant should or shouldn't know, or what does and doesn't need to be turned into an analogy. Overcoming this is a difficult skill.
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      Was it Einstein who said: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"? In any case, I agree that it's hard to explain computer stuff to non-computer people. That does not mean one can then be arrogant toward others.
eric_the_read 13y ago
I used to have that problem about half the time, and the other half of the time, the opposite-- where I'd assume they knew nothing about my field, and elide details they were actually interested in. So now I tend to ask lots of probing questions when explaining things, which seems to annoy people who just want me to get to the point! Surely there is another middle ground; the one I'm trying seems to not work.

overgryphon 13y ago

It's laziness. Instead of recognizing that everyone got where they are now by a different path where they learned different things and appreciating the diversity of knowledge that creates, it's so much easier to say, you should have known that.

chris_mahan 13y ago
It's laziness, and it's also lack of empathy.
- yzhengyu 13y ago
  I have observed that it is far easier to naturally empathise with one who has many similarities to you rather than empathise with another who is radically different from you. The latter actually requires conscious effort.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    As you note, it's not easy. Nevertheless I believe it is effort well spent.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Nevertheless, it's natural. People expect short inferential distances[1]. In plain speak, we tend to intuitively assume that a piece of knowledge is either common knowledge, or easily explainable from common knowledge. Like: "there's a tiger behind the bushes!". Not everyone knows that, since the tiger is difficult to spot. Everyone however knows what a tiger looks like, and what danger or source of food it represents. So, anyone who doesn't understand that sentence is an idiot. Conversely, if someone who tells you that stars are Balls of Gas Burning Billions Miles away[2] is plain crazy… unless it's your which doctor, of course. That one knows ways you don't. Except that the last two paragraphs are now bullshit. A few centuries ago (very recently, by evolutionary standards), our world became more complicated, and our instincts haven't quite caught up yet. Laziness? Lack of empathy? Yeah, sure. But the effort required to expect the inferential distances we actually have to deal with is very real. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if that last paragraph fell short for anyone who isn't familiar with the LessWrong Sequences[3]. Sorry. [1]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Inferential_distance http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Inferential_distance [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZDk1cbKp7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZDk1cbKp7s [3]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences
- spiffytech 13y ago
  It's not really either of these things. The curse of expertise in a field is you live and breathe stuff so deeply for so long that you forget what it's like to not be an expert in your field. You forget what non-experts, or bystanders, don't know, because it's hard to remember a time when you didn't know these things. Computer people are notorious for having trouble explaining technical issues to computer-illiterates for this exact reason. It's not that their unempathetic - they are trying to explain so that the conversant understands, after all - but rather, they've been experts for so long, they forget which technical terms the conversant should or shouldn't know, or what does and doesn't need to be turned into an analogy. Overcoming this is a difficult skill.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Was it Einstein who said: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"? In any case, I agree that it's hard to explain computer stuff to non-computer people. That does not mean one can then be arrogant toward others.

eric_the_read 13y ago

I used to have that problem about half the time, and the other half of the time, the opposite-- where I'd assume they knew nothing about my field, and elide details they were actually interested in. So now I tend to ask lots of probing questions when explaining things, which seems to annoy people who just want me to get to the point! Surely there is another middle ground; the one I'm trying seems to not work.