4 ms·

The curious thing is, this post is an instance of what it complains about. Matt is not so far as I know a formally trained psychologist. So to the extent he's

by pg 18y ago

The curious thing is, this post is an instance of what it complains about. Matt is not so far as I know a formally trained psychologist. So to the extent he's right, he disproves his own argument. The truth is, while intelligence isn't knowledge, it can be rapidly converted into it. In fact that would do fairly well as a definition of intelligence. And in any case, credentials aren't knowledge either. Ultimately you have to judge any argument by what it says, not who said it.

anigbrowl 18y ago
We're just not as smart as he thinks he is.
mattmaroon 18y ago
Well, I didn't mean it was literally a mental disease, that part was more tongue in cheek. But that's pretty funny. I am, at best, a very amateur psychologist. You're right about credentials though for sure, but how do you judge an intricate argument on its merits when you just don't know much about the topic? For instance, read some of the articles for and against anthropogenic global warming written by scientists. I can find very convincing arguments on either side, full of lots of facts I probably can't easily verify and lots of conclusions drawn from them that I can't easily validate are sound logic, because I know so little about climate science. Without me spending years rapidly converting my intelligence into domain specific knowledge, as the people making those arguments have done, how do I know which side to believe when I step into the voting booth? It's an epistemology problem, and a tough one.
- ErrantX 18y ago
  So if your not a political expert does that preclude you from voting in an election?
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    No. It without a doubt precludes me from ever being 100% certain I'm voting the right way. But I feel comfortable voting because I think I'm more frequently correct than the average voter. On the other hand, 80% of men think they're an above average driver.
    - Xichekolas 18y ago
      In general, everyone rates themselves as above average. Known as the Lake Wobegon Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect This study on the subject was especially good reading: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Most interestingly, the study points out that people who are truly way above average underrate themselves, illustrating the old adage that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know.
      - electromagnetic 18y ago
        You make an interesting point, those who achieve well are often self-deprecating. When I began I thought I was great at golf, it helped that I was actually making near 300 yards with a driver. However I quickly learnt that I nearly always slice the ball, and when I don't I can break 300 yards. A similar thing happened with my writing, once I broke a certain point and I suddenly realized I'd just climbed a molehill and noticed the mountain. It's incredible how a small amount of knowledge will make you feel smart, but a moderate amount of knowledge will make you feel stupid, and a considerable amount of knowledge will make you feel just plain ignorant.
        etal 18y ago
        Some of it's the regression effect, where the extreme results really are flukes -- and the achievers are aware of it -- while average results are more likely to be statistically representative. Of course, "aware of it" is key, which is why the results sometimes diverge at the other end of the scale.
      - Confusion 18y ago
        As most people will not read that PDF, I think it is important to make one thing clear about your last sentence: although people in the top quarter underestimate themselves, they still estimate themselves to be in the top quarter and they also estimate themselves to be better than those in other quarters.
- icey 18y ago
  I think it's safe to say that people posting here have the assumption that they're talking to a bunch hackers giving their opinion, and not getting legal council. The enforcement of pseudo political correctness by having to post IANAL at the front of every opinion that may have even remotely looked like legal advice is part of what degraded the quality of Slashdot's comments way back when, if you ask me. Of course you're not a lawyer, this is not a legal community.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Why ask a legal question to a bunch of non-lawyers? What good could come of that? There are only two possible responses: 1. You mistakenly come out thinking you were more informed than you were before you asked (dangerous). 2. You ignore it, in which case it's a bunch of wasted time.
    - pchristensen 18y ago
      3. You have an idea of the ballpark you're playing in instead of being entirely clueless. You have somewhat of a clue to talk about the next time you see your lawyer.
    - staunch 18y ago
      It can be harmful to Google for medical information about a condition you have if it leads to improper self-medication. It has also helped people save or improve their lives because they knew the right questions to ask or areas to explore.
    - iamelgringo 18y ago
      Why ask a legal question to a bunch of non-lawyers? What good could come of that? There are only two possible responses Because chances are, some people here might have actually paid $200 an hour and talked to a lawyer about this subject. I can't afford that on a regular basis for one off questions. I've read a number of posts asking for legal advice here, and a number of those posts contain the answer, "Here's my opinion, but you _really_ need a lawyer, dude." Case in point, I actually really enjoyed your legalesque advice on sweepstakes vs gambling in different states a while back. http://searchyc.com/sweepstakes+gambling+mattmaroon http://searchyc.com/sweepstakes+gambling+mattmaroon I'm sure with your background in the gambling world, you've had some exposure to those laws. I took what you said at face value and with a big pinch of salt. Should my site ever create a sweepstakes, I'll certainly be more cautious as a result of what you said, and I probably will pony up the Benjamins and talk to a lawyer about it. You also have a good point in that anyone who makes legal decisions about things pertaining to their business because of what they read in an online forum has problems.
- scott_s 18y ago
  When I read PG's comment, I thought his comment about psychologists was about your assumptions of other people's thoughts, not the throwaway line about disease. I stopped reading your post when I felt your arguments were depending on a piling up of assumptions on other people's mental state - their motivations, comprehension and intentions.
uuilly 18y ago
Everything I read seemed to draw on experience and common sense rather than psychological theory. But I must confess, it was long and I skimmed halfway through.
ErrantX 18y ago
Indeed I had the same thought reading it. On his specific example he assumes that his sequence of events (1,2,3 and 4) actually happened. Without knowledge of the IP lawyers Warner hire, which one (if any) decided on that course of action and the process that it went through. Without that information he falls foul of his own fallacy.
- greatreorx 18y ago
  "Now I’m not saying any of that is the case. For all I know, this was all just done by some automated software or a low-level grunt" I think you missed this part. He readily admits he doesn't know who or what was responsible for Warner's actions.
  - ErrantX 18y ago
    shrug so why imply it in the first place then? The assertion is that his idea of what happened was worth more than the other posters. Indeed from my experience of huge corporations (which comes from fairly regular contact) none of his (3) scenarios are particularly likely... EDIT: (because the above was an unclear reply). my point being he is trying to say the people in that thread are probably wrong whilst offering 3 or so alternatives that are, equally, probably wrong too. Whilst he does admit he cant know what really went down that is not what he seems to suggest in the rest of the post. My point is like PG's: he is falling foul of his own arguments :( and badly. His example is like many of the "culprits" he ID's on here who lay out their opinions in a very specific way and then throw in a "but it could be like a, b, c of course" as a way to make out they are open to any suggestion... ;) :P
michael_nielsen 18y ago
"while intelligence isn't knowledge, it can be rapidly converted into it." For subjects with depth, this is wrong. And I think that's part of the reason why HN discussions of many subjects with some depth (politics, finance, economics, legal issues, and so on) often seem shallow. I'm not an expert in any of those areas, and maybe my judgement is wrong. But I am an expert in the physical sciences, and Matt's post looks pretty spot on as a diagnosis of what's wrong with some of the HN threads related to the physical sciences. None of this is to say that HN isn't still a great forum. But it remains at its best on the subject of startups and (to a lesser extent) related technical subjects.
- Rod 18y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree. Intelligence can only be rapidly converted into superficial knowledge. I've never heard of anyone who became an expert in Quantum Field Theory in a couple of years without having a background in Physics, that is for sure. I know people who became reasonably good programmers in a couple of years, though... but programming is more of a skill than true knowledge. Hackers should focus on hacking and be more humble when treading on unknown territory, imho.
  - kurtosis 18y ago
    To get an idea of the amount of work required to gain "depth" consider these famous lists: HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST by Gerard 't Hooft This is a web site (still under construction) for young students - and anyone else - who are (like me) thrilled by the challenges posed by real science, and who are - like me - determined to use their brains to discover new things about the physical world that we are living in. In short, it is for all those who decided to study theoretical physics, in their own time. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html See also: Herring Brain Box http://large.stanford.edu/herring/brain/ http://large.stanford.edu/herring/brain/
    - Rod 18y ago
      I knew Hooft's page already. Thanks for the other URL. I did some work on Experimental Physics years ago, then discovered that I was more into Applied Math. No plans to become a theoretical physicist, but I still read some stuff on it once in a while, just for kicks...
tokenadult 18y ago
while intelligence isn't knowledge, it can be rapidly converted into it This is a reasonable statement about what mainstream psychology says is a consequence of IQ (the operationalization of "intelligence" among psychologists). Having some of the mental faculties tapped by IQ tests generally results in more accumulation of the kind of knowledge imparted by school lessons or self-study, so that adult IQ tests have a lot of item content that consists of tests of knowledge. But cognitive psychologists point out that intelligence (I would say "IQ") does not imply rationality. http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300123852 http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238... http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psychology/dp/030012385X http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psycholog... The behavioral economists who study judgment under uncertainty repeatedly replicate results showing that high-IQ individuals are very capable of making irrational, inexpedient decisions. And even when challenged about those decisions, most people persist in their irrational thinking. There is also a widely replicated result in psychological research showing that most people overestimate their competence in most domains. http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect So it shouldn't suprise any of us that most online discussion consists of people expressing opinions that they are more confident about than is warranted by the evidence supporting the opinions. Ultimately you have to judge any argument by what it says, not who said it. This is the best cultural way that HN can support the development of rationality among its participants. It happens that I am self-taught in the psychological literature I have just mentioned. I am fortunate, in my community service work, to have acquaintance with several Ph.D. psychologists who provide me with reading suggestions and bounce ideas off me. They like the working paper on IQ testing I presented in public in 2006, and they encourage me to keep on researching. I in turn like all HN participants to feel free to ask follow-up questions asking for evidence and checking assumptions and logic as each HN participant posts opinions. I think Matt's point in the submitted article is well taken--law is a specific body of knowledge (a body of knowledge in which I DO have a credential and work experience), and many guesses about what the law is made by laymen are not correct. If someone makes a statement about a verifiable fact, it is a good idea for other participants to check the fact and verify what the best course of action is for a hacker trying to build a start-up.
0xdefec8 18y ago
sounds like an appeal to authority just got countered with a tu quoque
tlb 18y ago
Matt argues that the best lawyers are probably as intelligent as the best hackers, and they have been generating knowledge about the legal system their entire careers, so they're going to be ahead of hackers in making predictions about how lawsuits will turn out. I don't see that he's arguing for credentials. Just that smart+experienced > smart+inexperienced. Some arguments can be judged by what they say. But ones that involve a prediction of how a complicated system will behave can't be judged by people without much experience. Most of the comments on the Lessig/DMCA story revolved around what precedent would be set by a lawsuit, which I don't feel confident to judge merely by reading the arguments.
owinebarger 18y ago
"The truth is, while intelligence isn't knowledge, it can be rapidly converted into it." Don't you know that it just takes 10,000 hours of practice to become a master of anything: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01brooks.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01brooks.html?_r=1 ? David Brooks has been trotting this theme out for years now.
ahoyhere 18y ago
"Ultimately you have to judge any argument by what it says, not who said it." That's not sufficient. You have to consider incentives, motives, history, etc. etc. Arguments do not stand alone in a vacuum, neither do "facts." The selection of facts, the selection of arguments, have everything to do with who says them... and why.

by pg 18y ago

anigbrowl 18y ago

We're just not as smart as he thinks he is.

mattmaroon 18y ago

Well, I didn't mean it was literally a mental disease, that part was more tongue in cheek. But that's pretty funny. I am, at best, a very amateur psychologist. You're right about credentials though for sure, but how do you judge an intricate argument on its merits when you just don't know much about the topic? For instance, read some of the articles for and against anthropogenic global warming written by scientists. I can find very convincing arguments on either side, full of lots of facts I probably can't easily verify and lots of conclusions drawn from them that I can't easily validate are sound logic, because I know so little about climate science. Without me spending years rapidly converting my intelligence into domain specific knowledge, as the people making those arguments have done, how do I know which side to believe when I step into the voting booth? It's an epistemology problem, and a tough one.

ErrantX 18y ago
So if your not a political expert does that preclude you from voting in an election?
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  No. It without a doubt precludes me from ever being 100% certain I'm voting the right way. But I feel comfortable voting because I think I'm more frequently correct than the average voter. On the other hand, 80% of men think they're an above average driver.
  - Xichekolas 18y ago
    In general, everyone rates themselves as above average. Known as the Lake Wobegon Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect This study on the subject was especially good reading: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Most interestingly, the study points out that people who are truly way above average underrate themselves, illustrating the old adage that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know.
    - electromagnetic 18y ago
      You make an interesting point, those who achieve well are often self-deprecating. When I began I thought I was great at golf, it helped that I was actually making near 300 yards with a driver. However I quickly learnt that I nearly always slice the ball, and when I don't I can break 300 yards. A similar thing happened with my writing, once I broke a certain point and I suddenly realized I'd just climbed a molehill and noticed the mountain. It's incredible how a small amount of knowledge will make you feel smart, but a moderate amount of knowledge will make you feel stupid, and a considerable amount of knowledge will make you feel just plain ignorant.
      - etal 18y ago
        Some of it's the regression effect, where the extreme results really are flukes -- and the achievers are aware of it -- while average results are more likely to be statistically representative. Of course, "aware of it" is key, which is why the results sometimes diverge at the other end of the scale.
    - Confusion 18y ago
      As most people will not read that PDF, I think it is important to make one thing clear about your last sentence: although people in the top quarter underestimate themselves, they still estimate themselves to be in the top quarter and they also estimate themselves to be better than those in other quarters.
icey 18y ago
I think it's safe to say that people posting here have the assumption that they're talking to a bunch hackers giving their opinion, and not getting legal council. The enforcement of pseudo political correctness by having to post IANAL at the front of every opinion that may have even remotely looked like legal advice is part of what degraded the quality of Slashdot's comments way back when, if you ask me. Of course you're not a lawyer, this is not a legal community.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Why ask a legal question to a bunch of non-lawyers? What good could come of that? There are only two possible responses: 1. You mistakenly come out thinking you were more informed than you were before you asked (dangerous). 2. You ignore it, in which case it's a bunch of wasted time.
  - pchristensen 18y ago
    3. You have an idea of the ballpark you're playing in instead of being entirely clueless. You have somewhat of a clue to talk about the next time you see your lawyer.
  - staunch 18y ago
    It can be harmful to Google for medical information about a condition you have if it leads to improper self-medication. It has also helped people save or improve their lives because they knew the right questions to ask or areas to explore.
  - iamelgringo 18y ago
    Why ask a legal question to a bunch of non-lawyers? What good could come of that? There are only two possible responses Because chances are, some people here might have actually paid $200 an hour and talked to a lawyer about this subject. I can't afford that on a regular basis for one off questions. I've read a number of posts asking for legal advice here, and a number of those posts contain the answer, "Here's my opinion, but you _really_ need a lawyer, dude." Case in point, I actually really enjoyed your legalesque advice on sweepstakes vs gambling in different states a while back. http://searchyc.com/sweepstakes+gambling+mattmaroon http://searchyc.com/sweepstakes+gambling+mattmaroon I'm sure with your background in the gambling world, you've had some exposure to those laws. I took what you said at face value and with a big pinch of salt. Should my site ever create a sweepstakes, I'll certainly be more cautious as a result of what you said, and I probably will pony up the Benjamins and talk to a lawyer about it. You also have a good point in that anyone who makes legal decisions about things pertaining to their business because of what they read in an online forum has problems.
scott_s 18y ago
When I read PG's comment, I thought his comment about psychologists was about your assumptions of other people's thoughts, not the throwaway line about disease. I stopped reading your post when I felt your arguments were depending on a piling up of assumptions on other people's mental state - their motivations, comprehension and intentions.

uuilly 18y ago

Everything I read seemed to draw on experience and common sense rather than psychological theory. But I must confess, it was long and I skimmed halfway through.

ErrantX 18y ago

Indeed I had the same thought reading it. On his specific example he assumes that his sequence of events (1,2,3 and 4) actually happened. Without knowledge of the IP lawyers Warner hire, which one (if any) decided on that course of action and the process that it went through. Without that information he falls foul of his own fallacy.

greatreorx 18y ago
"Now I’m not saying any of that is the case. For all I know, this was all just done by some automated software or a low-level grunt" I think you missed this part. He readily admits he doesn't know who or what was responsible for Warner's actions.
- ErrantX 18y ago
  shrug so why imply it in the first place then? The assertion is that his idea of what happened was worth more than the other posters. Indeed from my experience of huge corporations (which comes from fairly regular contact) none of his (3) scenarios are particularly likely... EDIT: (because the above was an unclear reply). my point being he is trying to say the people in that thread are probably wrong whilst offering 3 or so alternatives that are, equally, probably wrong too. Whilst he does admit he cant know what really went down that is not what he seems to suggest in the rest of the post. My point is like PG's: he is falling foul of his own arguments :( and badly. His example is like many of the "culprits" he ID's on here who lay out their opinions in a very specific way and then throw in a "but it could be like a, b, c of course" as a way to make out they are open to any suggestion... ;) :P

michael_nielsen 18y ago

"while intelligence isn't knowledge, it can be rapidly converted into it." For subjects with depth, this is wrong. And I think that's part of the reason why HN discussions of many subjects with some depth (politics, finance, economics, legal issues, and so on) often seem shallow. I'm not an expert in any of those areas, and maybe my judgement is wrong. But I am an expert in the physical sciences, and Matt's post looks pretty spot on as a diagnosis of what's wrong with some of the HN threads related to the physical sciences. None of this is to say that HN isn't still a great forum. But it remains at its best on the subject of startups and (to a lesser extent) related technical subjects.

Rod 18y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. Intelligence can only be rapidly converted into superficial knowledge. I've never heard of anyone who became an expert in Quantum Field Theory in a couple of years without having a background in Physics, that is for sure. I know people who became reasonably good programmers in a couple of years, though... but programming is more of a skill than true knowledge. Hackers should focus on hacking and be more humble when treading on unknown territory, imho.
- kurtosis 18y ago
  To get an idea of the amount of work required to gain "depth" consider these famous lists: HOW to BECOME a GOOD THEORETICAL PHYSICIST by Gerard 't Hooft This is a web site (still under construction) for young students - and anyone else - who are (like me) thrilled by the challenges posed by real science, and who are - like me - determined to use their brains to discover new things about the physical world that we are living in. In short, it is for all those who decided to study theoretical physics, in their own time. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html See also: Herring Brain Box http://large.stanford.edu/herring/brain/ http://large.stanford.edu/herring/brain/
  - Rod 18y ago
    I knew Hooft's page already. Thanks for the other URL. I did some work on Experimental Physics years ago, then discovered that I was more into Applied Math. No plans to become a theoretical physicist, but I still read some stuff on it once in a while, just for kicks...

tokenadult 18y ago

while intelligence isn't knowledge, it can be rapidly converted into it This is a reasonable statement about what mainstream psychology says is a consequence of IQ (the operationalization of "intelligence" among psychologists). Having some of the mental faculties tapped by IQ tests generally results in more accumulation of the kind of knowledge imparted by school lessons or self-study, so that adult IQ tests have a lot of item content that consists of tests of knowledge. But cognitive psychologists point out that intelligence (I would say "IQ") does not imply rationality. http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300123852 http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238... http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psychology/dp/030012385X http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psycholog... The behavioral economists who study judgment under uncertainty repeatedly replicate results showing that high-IQ individuals are very capable of making irrational, inexpedient decisions. And even when challenged about those decisions, most people persist in their irrational thinking. There is also a widely replicated result in psychological research showing that most people overestimate their competence in most domains. http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect So it shouldn't suprise any of us that most online discussion consists of people expressing opinions that they are more confident about than is warranted by the evidence supporting the opinions. Ultimately you have to judge any argument by what it says, not who said it. This is the best cultural way that HN can support the development of rationality among its participants. It happens that I am self-taught in the psychological literature I have just mentioned. I am fortunate, in my community service work, to have acquaintance with several Ph.D. psychologists who provide me with reading suggestions and bounce ideas off me. They like the working paper on IQ testing I presented in public in 2006, and they encourage me to keep on researching. I in turn like all HN participants to feel free to ask follow-up questions asking for evidence and checking assumptions and logic as each HN participant posts opinions. I think Matt's point in the submitted article is well taken--law is a specific body of knowledge (a body of knowledge in which I DO have a credential and work experience), and many guesses about what the law is made by laymen are not correct. If someone makes a statement about a verifiable fact, it is a good idea for other participants to check the fact and verify what the best course of action is for a hacker trying to build a start-up.

0xdefec8 18y ago

sounds like an appeal to authority just got countered with a tu quoque

tlb 18y ago

Matt argues that the best lawyers are probably as intelligent as the best hackers, and they have been generating knowledge about the legal system their entire careers, so they're going to be ahead of hackers in making predictions about how lawsuits will turn out. I don't see that he's arguing for credentials. Just that smart+experienced > smart+inexperienced. Some arguments can be judged by what they say. But ones that involve a prediction of how a complicated system will behave can't be judged by people without much experience. Most of the comments on the Lessig/DMCA story revolved around what precedent would be set by a lawsuit, which I don't feel confident to judge merely by reading the arguments.

owinebarger 18y ago

"The truth is, while intelligence isn't knowledge, it can be rapidly converted into it." Don't you know that it just takes 10,000 hours of practice to become a master of anything: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01brooks.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01brooks.html?_r=1 ? David Brooks has been trotting this theme out for years now.

ahoyhere 18y ago

"Ultimately you have to judge any argument by what it says, not who said it." That's not sufficient. You have to consider incentives, motives, history, etc. etc. Arguments do not stand alone in a vacuum, neither do "facts." The selection of facts, the selection of arguments, have everything to do with who says them... and why.