3 ms·

None. It's something which is, ironically, used by people who overestimate their own understanding of pop-psychology to put down others. The fact that it was us

None. It's something which is, ironically, used by people who overestimate their own understanding of pop-psychology to put down others. The fact that it was used in earnest without presenting any justification just makes it all the more hilarious, unintentionally so.

coldtea 13y ago
>It's something which is, ironically, used by people who overestimate their own understanding of pop-psychology to put down others. While a valiant effort of you to meta-snark (couldn't help it, could you?), there's nothing much to "understand" about it. It's a well known experimental study. And it wasn't quoted here as a scientific citation -- just as a well known metaphor for "don't overestimate your smarts, kid". >The fact that it was used in earnest without presenting any justification just makes it all the more hilarious, unintentionally so. "Without presenting any justification"? What exactly do you thing this is? Some academic forum on psychology where we study cognitive issues? He have, here, an exchange on programming languages, where the parent put down whole classes of programmers as inferior (to some unmentioned higher standard) with rigorous hand waving and a few invalid arguments -- several of which I refuted. The reference to a cognitive superiority bias was given in this context, as a token "and who do you think you are" gesture. Nobody said that this was a clinically verified case of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action -- or that it was the core of the conversation anyway (it's a single link at the very bottom of a 450 word reply). I know some people on HN tend to be pedantic, but you should not let pedantry ruin your ability to hold a conversation (AKA, the "well, actually" effect: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html ).
- nahreally 13y ago
  And yet you keep handing out these passive-aggressive put downs to everyone left and right. Maybe you should just not invoke the blog versions of scientific results into everyday conversation, much less to denigrate others. And maybe you shouldn't go around imparting your perceived wisdom on others so liberally. I think it's rather pretentious, and it's all part of an unfortunate ailment of geeks who feel the need to appear cultured, to pop random facts and factoids into conversation, and the Dunning Kruger effect has to be one of the most abused of these. I should know, I suffer it too. Either way, I didn't get that the OP wanted to put down other developers, rather that the language designers did, by "simplifying" their languages by sticking to tradition and leaving crucial features out, and needless features in.
- mcgwiz 13y ago
  I think meta-conversations can quickly go downhill, but that they can also be constructive. I'll just say that there's always room for doubt, including in our presumptions about the intent of others, and that linking to an article about a particular cognitive bias doesn't necessarily strengthen an argument, nor does it put someone above that bias. For whatever it's worth, I've found that when I encounter apparent (possibly offensive) disagreement, I'm less constructive when I act on presumptions, and more constructive when I engage a Socractic dialog.

coldtea 13y ago

>It's something which is, ironically, used by people who overestimate their own understanding of pop-psychology to put down others. While a valiant effort of you to meta-snark (couldn't help it, could you?), there's nothing much to "understand" about it. It's a well known experimental study. And it wasn't quoted here as a scientific citation -- just as a well known metaphor for "don't overestimate your smarts, kid". >The fact that it was used in earnest without presenting any justification just makes it all the more hilarious, unintentionally so. "Without presenting any justification"? What exactly do you thing this is? Some academic forum on psychology where we study cognitive issues? He have, here, an exchange on programming languages, where the parent put down whole classes of programmers as inferior (to some unmentioned higher standard) with rigorous hand waving and a few invalid arguments -- several of which I refuted. The reference to a cognitive superiority bias was given in this context, as a token "and who do you think you are" gesture. Nobody said that this was a clinically verified case of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action -- or that it was the core of the conversation anyway (it's a single link at the very bottom of a 450 word reply). I know some people on HN tend to be pedantic, but you should not let pedantry ruin your ability to hold a conversation (AKA, the "well, actually" effect: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Feb-17.html ).

nahreally 13y ago
And yet you keep handing out these passive-aggressive put downs to everyone left and right. Maybe you should just not invoke the blog versions of scientific results into everyday conversation, much less to denigrate others. And maybe you shouldn't go around imparting your perceived wisdom on others so liberally. I think it's rather pretentious, and it's all part of an unfortunate ailment of geeks who feel the need to appear cultured, to pop random facts and factoids into conversation, and the Dunning Kruger effect has to be one of the most abused of these. I should know, I suffer it too. Either way, I didn't get that the OP wanted to put down other developers, rather that the language designers did, by "simplifying" their languages by sticking to tradition and leaving crucial features out, and needless features in.
mcgwiz 13y ago
I think meta-conversations can quickly go downhill, but that they can also be constructive. I'll just say that there's always room for doubt, including in our presumptions about the intent of others, and that linking to an article about a particular cognitive bias doesn't necessarily strengthen an argument, nor does it put someone above that bias. For whatever it's worth, I've found that when I encounter apparent (possibly offensive) disagreement, I'm less constructive when I act on presumptions, and more constructive when I engage a Socractic dialog.