4 ms·

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.

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.
      - Nwallins 18y ago
        > they still estimate themselves to be in the top quarter and they also estimate themselves to be better than those in other quarters. Isn't a top quarter member 'better' than those in the other (lower) quarters by definition?
        Confusion 18y ago
        Yes, but atop quarter members that estimate themselves to be in the top quarter don't necessarily estimate themselves to be better than non top quarter members that estimate themselves to be in the top quarter. The 'better' is 'within the top quarter'.
  - ErrantX 18y ago
    But that is totally contrary to the blog post you just made :P I was trying to point out the extreme fallacy in your argument. At the end of the day you suggested that postulating an opinion on a subject should be left to the experts. I think were looking at things the wrong way: people should be free to express themselves and their thoughts how they wish. It's up to each of us to decide who is "right" and who we wish to listen to. I think basically I approach this the opposite way from yourself :)
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.

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.
    - Nwallins 18y ago
      > they still estimate themselves to be in the top quarter and they also estimate themselves to be better than those in other quarters. Isn't a top quarter member 'better' than those in the other (lower) quarters by definition?
      - Confusion 18y ago
        Yes, but atop quarter members that estimate themselves to be in the top quarter don't necessarily estimate themselves to be better than non top quarter members that estimate themselves to be in the top quarter. The 'better' is 'within the top quarter'.
- ErrantX 18y ago
  But that is totally contrary to the blog post you just made :P I was trying to point out the extreme fallacy in your argument. At the end of the day you suggested that postulating an opinion on a subject should be left to the experts. I think were looking at things the wrong way: people should be free to express themselves and their thoughts how they wish. It's up to each of us to decide who is "right" and who we wish to listen to. I think basically I approach this the opposite way from yourself :)

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.