3 ms·

Halfway though, "assume good faith" seems like a key mantra here.

colanderman 12y ago
That's a good mantra for life in general. Consider the subject expert, asked by a layperson a question which betrays a lack of domain vocabulary. Many such "experts" would assert the question to be a consequence of an inconsistent mental model, and question the petitioner's right to challenge the "expert" in the first place. These so-called "experts" who assume stupidity of the uninformed are rude, caustic, unconstructive, and contribute little to the human experience. The true expert assumes an intelligent, albeit subject-ignorant, layperson. By placing themselves in the mind of the layperson and attempting to form a reasonable (if incorrect) mental model to fit the question asked, the expert can then explain both proper terminology, and either answer the question, or explain why it is ill-posed. These people help spread knowledge and are a boon to society. As an example, consider a student who challenges a teacher of Newtonian physics to reconcile the Newtownian assertion that an object dropped while moving will continue to move forward, with the folk-physics belief that the object will fall where it is dropped. The caustic "expert" will simply assert the student is misguided and should pay more attention when he or she drops something. Perhaps perform some experiments and then get back to them. The true expert will expend the small effort to understand that the student's mental model is likely formed from examples of lightweight objects being dropped at high velocities (e.g. a paper cup from a car), as any other common scenario results in the object reaching the ground quickly enough that the dropper has barely proceeded from his or her location. The true expert can then explain that indeed the student's model is correct in such scenarios, due to air resistance, and how these scenarios differ from the textbook's frictionless spheres in a vacuum.
- mortenjorck 12y ago
  A very nice illustration. I often played the part of the "bad expert" when I was growing up, but I was able to get over it by asking myself the simple question: What do I actually have to prove? I love learning things myself; why should I deny someone else that joy of having a concept explained with empathy and respect?
bentcorner 12y ago
Similarly, I've found it useful to understand the fundamental attribution error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Attribution_Error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Attribution_Error
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  It's interesting to note how much of what passes for discussion on the 'Net goes away when you blip past articles and comments that are nothing but fundamental attribution error. Believing you have insight into another person's primary motivations when you don't know them well and haven't had the opportunity to observe them over time is enormously limiting and damaging, yet almost everyone does it almost all the time. In a communicative relationship it is silly: you can simply ask the other person, "What's up with that?" In an uncommunicative relationship it is almost useless, because we are demonstrably so very bad at it. That doesn't leave a lot of room over where it is valuable.

That's a good mantra for life in general. Consider the subject expert, asked by a layperson a question which betrays a lack of domain vocabulary. Many such "experts" would assert the question to be a consequence of an inconsistent mental model, and question the petitioner's right to challenge the "expert" in the first place. These so-called "experts" who assume stupidity of the uninformed are rude, caustic, unconstructive, and contribute little to the human experience. The true expert assumes an intelligent, albeit subject-ignorant, layperson. By placing themselves in the mind of the layperson and attempting to form a reasonable (if incorrect) mental model to fit the question asked, the expert can then explain both proper terminology, and either answer the question, or explain why it is ill-posed. These people help spread knowledge and are a boon to society. As an example, consider a student who challenges a teacher of Newtonian physics to reconcile the Newtownian assertion that an object dropped while moving will continue to move forward, with the folk-physics belief that the object will fall where it is dropped. The caustic "expert" will simply assert the student is misguided and should pay more attention when he or she drops something. Perhaps perform some experiments and then get back to them. The true expert will expend the small effort to understand that the student's mental model is likely formed from examples of lightweight objects being dropped at high velocities (e.g. a paper cup from a car), as any other common scenario results in the object reaching the ground quickly enough that the dropper has barely proceeded from his or her location. The true expert can then explain that indeed the student's model is correct in such scenarios, due to air resistance, and how these scenarios differ from the textbook's frictionless spheres in a vacuum.

mortenjorck 12y ago
A very nice illustration. I often played the part of the "bad expert" when I was growing up, but I was able to get over it by asking myself the simple question: What do I actually have to prove? I love learning things myself; why should I deny someone else that joy of having a concept explained with empathy and respect?

bentcorner 12y ago

Similarly, I've found it useful to understand the fundamental attribution error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Attribution_Error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Attribution_Error

tjradcliffe 12y ago
It's interesting to note how much of what passes for discussion on the 'Net goes away when you blip past articles and comments that are nothing but fundamental attribution error. Believing you have insight into another person's primary motivations when you don't know them well and haven't had the opportunity to observe them over time is enormously limiting and damaging, yet almost everyone does it almost all the time. In a communicative relationship it is silly: you can simply ask the other person, "What's up with that?" In an uncommunicative relationship it is almost useless, because we are demonstrably so very bad at it. That doesn't leave a lot of room over where it is valuable.