3 ms·

Now put it in an algorithm that detects any mention of "only, always, never" or any other absolute. Then insert a boilerplate at the top of such discussions, s

by adwf 13y ago

Now put it in an algorithm that detects any mention of "only, always, never" or any other absolute. Then insert a boilerplate at the top of such discussions, saying there are always exceptions, but the gist of the argument is still valid ;)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jacques_chester 13y ago
I can't help but feel that if fuzzy logic was taught more widely in computer science courses, people would be more sanguine about "only, always, never" as linguistic qualifiers. ... not that I am without guilt on this ...
- adwf 13y ago
  The funny thing is that I come from a physics degree background and hence have a tendency to stick with the more scientifically accurate "I think, maybe, probably, possibly, almost always", rather than going for absolutes. However, when you enter into the business world, you tend to find that this kind of language comes across as weak and uncertain. Even though you are merely trying to be correct and not give false impressions! So now I actually appreciate more confident, strong language, because when I read a blog post or article like this, I can take the caveats as being there, but unsaid. I sometimes think that if everyone took this assumption, Hacker News would decimate its comment count!
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    So, you got me to thinking. As a side-effect of his work on expert forecasting[1], Tetlock discovered that people put more stock in those who made confident predictions than those who qualified their predictions. To the point that he basically says: if a person is a famous pundit, they are more likely to be wrong, because the media prefers bold predictions to maybes and perhapses. In business you can be bold or not bold. If you're not bold, you are at a social disadvantage. Then you can be right or wrong. If you are right, everyone hails you as a visionary. If you are wrong, nobody remembers. So in fact, in business, the rational strategy for an individual is to speak confidently and let the dice fly high. [1] I reviewed his book a while back. http://chester.id.au/2012/07/29/review-expert-political-judgement/ http://chester.id.au/2012/07/29/review-expert-political-judg...
    - adwf 13y ago
      Yes it's actually quite an awkward point for me at the moment. I have a side-project that I've been developing for a while. My attachment to it means that I know every single bug and flaw within the product. But at the same time I know that if I add caveats to any marketing (it's a bit alpha/beta, etc.), then it will come across as unconfident. On the other hand, if I just say it's amazing and will change your life, I'll probably (can't resist the language even now...), do far, far better.
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
        I know how you feel. The way I deal with it is to find the claims I can confidently make and stick with those. A lot of the time you can do that by looking at the business value side of things. For example, I can't truthfully say that my code is bug free or the best or whathaveyou. But I can say "My product improves <business problem>." I guess the trick is to have two hats. The first hat is the problem domain hat. This is where you make confident, accurate claims about your product. The second is the solution domain hat. This is where you park your professional anxieties about whether you've crossed and dotted everything.
    - eved1973 13y ago
      That reminds me of a story I heard about doctors who are asked to determine the gender of a baby during a pregnancy scan. They will announce the gender to the parents verbally (It's a boy!), but put the other gender in their files. If you do end up having a boy, it doesn't go further. If you end up having a girl, and question the doctor, he/she points to the file and says "You must have misunderstood what I said".
    - dennisgorelik 13y ago
      People don't care much if pundits are right or wrong. Instead people care that pundits are clear (confident statements help with clarity). Qualifiers are substituted by getting multiple opinions from different pundits.
      - jacques_chester 13y ago
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Edge cases seem to be where all the fun is, tho... =D
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      What I like about fuzzy logic is that it pushes a lot of paradoxes down a level. Instead of having paradoxes bubble up to the top level and derailing discussion, you instead turn fuzziness into an abstract object which is polymorphic to other logical objects. This gives you the handles you need to grasp and wrestle with the vagueness of the actual world without either needing to give up rigour or rely on hacks and undocumented conventions about the mapping from the real world into the logical world. If you've got the patience, I can give as an example a long review I wrote of Sidney Dekker's Drift into Failure, where in part I argued that his argument largely vanishes if reframed in terms of fuzzy logic: http://chester.id.au/2012/04/09/review-drift-into-failure/ http://chester.id.au/2012/04/09/review-drift-into-failure/ Edit: Hmm, I really look like a spammer in this thread. Not intentional. No more than usual, anyhow.
apu 13y ago
For an example of this, look at the sibling comment by pak (made after yours) =) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6844169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6844169
- pak 13y ago
  To which I say, what is the point of words like "only" and "all", if they do not mean what they are supposed to? I'm not trying to be a stickler. Granted, I work mostly in science research, where broad claims are discouraged and quantifying confidence in a hypothesis is expected. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At best, I think this rule could apply to (maybe) 80% of "huge" tech companies. 80% is a disingenuously long distance from "all companies".
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    Because humans are not logical inference engines; language is flexible, nuanced and complex. A blog post is not a industry research paper.

by adwf 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jacques_chester 13y ago

I can't help but feel that if fuzzy logic was taught more widely in computer science courses, people would be more sanguine about "only, always, never" as linguistic qualifiers. ... not that I am without guilt on this ...

adwf 13y ago
The funny thing is that I come from a physics degree background and hence have a tendency to stick with the more scientifically accurate "I think, maybe, probably, possibly, almost always", rather than going for absolutes. However, when you enter into the business world, you tend to find that this kind of language comes across as weak and uncertain. Even though you are merely trying to be correct and not give false impressions! So now I actually appreciate more confident, strong language, because when I read a blog post or article like this, I can take the caveats as being there, but unsaid. I sometimes think that if everyone took this assumption, Hacker News would decimate its comment count!
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  So, you got me to thinking. As a side-effect of his work on expert forecasting[1], Tetlock discovered that people put more stock in those who made confident predictions than those who qualified their predictions. To the point that he basically says: if a person is a famous pundit, they are more likely to be wrong, because the media prefers bold predictions to maybes and perhapses. In business you can be bold or not bold. If you're not bold, you are at a social disadvantage. Then you can be right or wrong. If you are right, everyone hails you as a visionary. If you are wrong, nobody remembers. So in fact, in business, the rational strategy for an individual is to speak confidently and let the dice fly high. [1] I reviewed his book a while back. http://chester.id.au/2012/07/29/review-expert-political-judgement/ http://chester.id.au/2012/07/29/review-expert-political-judg...
  - adwf 13y ago
    Yes it's actually quite an awkward point for me at the moment. I have a side-project that I've been developing for a while. My attachment to it means that I know every single bug and flaw within the product. But at the same time I know that if I add caveats to any marketing (it's a bit alpha/beta, etc.), then it will come across as unconfident. On the other hand, if I just say it's amazing and will change your life, I'll probably (can't resist the language even now...), do far, far better.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      I know how you feel. The way I deal with it is to find the claims I can confidently make and stick with those. A lot of the time you can do that by looking at the business value side of things. For example, I can't truthfully say that my code is bug free or the best or whathaveyou. But I can say "My product improves <business problem>." I guess the trick is to have two hats. The first hat is the problem domain hat. This is where you make confident, accurate claims about your product. The second is the solution domain hat. This is where you park your professional anxieties about whether you've crossed and dotted everything.
  - eved1973 13y ago
    That reminds me of a story I heard about doctors who are asked to determine the gender of a baby during a pregnancy scan. They will announce the gender to the parents verbally (It's a boy!), but put the other gender in their files. If you do end up having a boy, it doesn't go further. If you end up having a girl, and question the doctor, he/she points to the file and says "You must have misunderstood what I said".
  - dennisgorelik 13y ago
    People don't care much if pundits are right or wrong. Instead people care that pundits are clear (confident statements help with clarity). Qualifiers are substituted by getting multiple opinions from different pundits.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
- 001sky 13y ago
  Edge cases seem to be where all the fun is, tho... =D
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    What I like about fuzzy logic is that it pushes a lot of paradoxes down a level. Instead of having paradoxes bubble up to the top level and derailing discussion, you instead turn fuzziness into an abstract object which is polymorphic to other logical objects. This gives you the handles you need to grasp and wrestle with the vagueness of the actual world without either needing to give up rigour or rely on hacks and undocumented conventions about the mapping from the real world into the logical world. If you've got the patience, I can give as an example a long review I wrote of Sidney Dekker's Drift into Failure, where in part I argued that his argument largely vanishes if reframed in terms of fuzzy logic: http://chester.id.au/2012/04/09/review-drift-into-failure/ http://chester.id.au/2012/04/09/review-drift-into-failure/ Edit: Hmm, I really look like a spammer in this thread. Not intentional. No more than usual, anyhow.

apu 13y ago

For an example of this, look at the sibling comment by pak (made after yours) =) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6844169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6844169

pak 13y ago
To which I say, what is the point of words like "only" and "all", if they do not mean what they are supposed to? I'm not trying to be a stickler. Granted, I work mostly in science research, where broad claims are discouraged and quantifying confidence in a hypothesis is expected. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At best, I think this rule could apply to (maybe) 80% of "huge" tech companies. 80% is a disingenuously long distance from "all companies".
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  Because humans are not logical inference engines; language is flexible, nuanced and complex. A blog post is not a industry research paper.