5 ms·

I've been thinking about this recently with internet comments on here, reddit, etc. There are very few topics on which I'd consider myself an expert, but whenev

I've been thinking about this recently with internet comments on here, reddit, etc. There are very few topics on which I'd consider myself an expert, but whenever one comes up, the "top" comment (often something contrarian/snarky) is always significantly incorrect.

roenxi 2y ago
Are you claiming expertise in computing or non-computing topics? HN tends to be - as we might expect - quite good at computers and bad/average [0] at everything else. I'd assume it is the same logic as comparative advantages in economics; it doesn't make sense for communities to become experts in everything. The only caveat is that people in the chattering communities (eg, journalists, influencers, celebrities) are some of the last to look to for informed opinions on reality since their speciality is attracting attention and telling stories rather than anything linked to success in the physical or academic worlds. They're often clever, just not involved in complex topics. [0] average = bad. Goes to show how catastrophic dictatorships are that a democracy can consistently outperform one.
- jfengel 2y ago
  Democracies function on the notion that most people have no idea what they're talking about, and vote randomly. The few who do know what they're talking about will all vote the same way, so most of the time the right answer will prevail. There are a lot of problems with that assumption. Thus far it seems to work out better than the alternatives, but we'll have to see if that continues to hold.
  - caseyohara 2y ago
    > Democracies function on the notion that most people have no idea what they're talking about, and vote randomly. Can you expand on this? I have no idea what you mean. In what way do most people vote randomly?
    - dartos 2y ago
      The theory is: In aggregate, the result of uninformed people voting would be more or less the same as voting randomly. Not that people vote without thinking.
      - em-bee 2y ago
        but that doesn't take into account the influence false reporting in the media has on them. badly or falsely informed is much worse than uninformed.
        corimaith 2y ago
        Yes, but false reporting isn't coming from just one side is it, it's something all sides can participate in. The way the education system is right now along with societal expectations, people are going to be misinformed rather than admitting to be uninformed.
        roenxi 2y ago
        In the absolute sense yes, but this thread was framed in comparison to undemocratic systems. The media aren't biased in the direction of making their host country worse off, so their biases aren't negative in that sense. We'd get better outcomes if people in the public discourse held themselves to higher standards; but their low standards don't stop the tendency of marginal voters to bias on rational decision making.
        em-bee 2y ago
        The media aren't biased in the direction of making their host country worse off i don't believe that. at least western media are biased towards majority and conservative views and for profit entities, ignoring or even suppressing minorities and that is making us worse off.
        roenxi 2y ago
        Conservative views are things that worked in the past though. For profit entities are all dedicated to satisfying the needs and wants of people and are part of society too. >90% of all the gains since the industrial revolution came from for-profit entities so it is a stretch to say they are biased in favour of making things worse. Minorities are, by definition, not a group that includes most people so things can get really brutal for them before it starts hurting the greater society. These are all biases that may be politically undesirable to you (the corporate media are basically the vanguard of class warfare, so they should be undesirable to a bunch of people), but they aren't biased in the direction of making things worse at the highest level of abstraction. A rising tide benefits all ships.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    I don’t think that’s true. I’m pretty sure the hope is that people are reasonably well informed. And anyway, we’re voting on representatives, not specific issues, for the most part. (I mean clearly referenda exist, but they aren’t the main thing). Or we’re voting on matters of preference, in which case the populace is essentially correct whatever their decision.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > HN tends to be - as we might expect - quite good at computers and bad/average [0] at everything else. Who's we? I don't expect that at all. "computers" is such a broad subject, with countless areas of specialty, and in my experience HN commenters are often, all too often, quite ignorant of my particular areas of specialty, though that doesn't stop them from overconfidentally asserting falsehoods about those subjects.
  - ThunderSizzle 2y ago
    Ignorant and arrogant. Hard to dialog with someone who embodies both, and I'd agree most of my readings on here include ignorance and arrogance.
rconti 2y ago
I think this is a significant contribution to imposter syndrome. It took me a long time in life to realize that the confidence some people have in their opinions rarely comes from true expertise; rather, it comes from their personality.
- throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
  Don't let the opposite add too much weight. Meaning, don't believe that all confident people are bullshiting their way. The best are people that have both expertise and confidence. This is one reason I like to stay at a company for many years, the expertise boosts my confidence more than linearly (if that makes sense).
sweeter 2y ago
100%. It's extra disastrous when the topic is polarizing or charged. The topic of US politics for example will very often work off of some false dichotomy or fundamentally flawed premise and twist into some horribly deformed conversation. Try telling someone that "the process of voting doesn't work that way" or try to clear up some common misconception about the economy or crime and it just doesn't go anywhere. People have a lot of false assurance to back up their mode of thinking and it is nearly impossible to break that. In fact, there is an entire economy in vindicating people's beliefs which makes people even more assured. I'm convinced the only proper stance on complex ideas, concepts and topics is that we shouldn't have the hubris to think that we completely understand something or even have a solid grasp.
- randomdata 2y ago
  Keep in mind that people don't talk about that which they believe they completely understand. When someone reaches a satisfiable conclusion in understanding, they lose interest in the subject and move on to something else. The political discourse around polarizing topics isn't disastrous. It takes place exactly because people realize that they are complex issues not fully understood, and are talking about it in hopes that more information will come to light to help them reach a greater understanding. This is why the more complex the issue, the more it will keep coming up over and over.
  - human_person 2y ago
    This is one of the most optimistic but realistic perspectives I’ve heard about online discussions in a long time. Thank you.
    - Anotheroneagain 2y ago
      Let me offer a dark one: human beings are bad at gathering information, inferring the right things from it, and responsibly passing it on to others. It is incredible what we’ve achieved in spite of this All was achieved when it was widely not so, and by people not affected by this.
  - 2y ago
slim 2y ago
I like the fact this applies to the comment you are commenting on since it is now the top comment :)

roenxi 2y ago

Are you claiming expertise in computing or non-computing topics? HN tends to be - as we might expect - quite good at computers and bad/average [0] at everything else. I'd assume it is the same logic as comparative advantages in economics; it doesn't make sense for communities to become experts in everything. The only caveat is that people in the chattering communities (eg, journalists, influencers, celebrities) are some of the last to look to for informed opinions on reality since their speciality is attracting attention and telling stories rather than anything linked to success in the physical or academic worlds. They're often clever, just not involved in complex topics. [0] average = bad. Goes to show how catastrophic dictatorships are that a democracy can consistently outperform one.

jfengel 2y ago
Democracies function on the notion that most people have no idea what they're talking about, and vote randomly. The few who do know what they're talking about will all vote the same way, so most of the time the right answer will prevail. There are a lot of problems with that assumption. Thus far it seems to work out better than the alternatives, but we'll have to see if that continues to hold.
- caseyohara 2y ago
  > Democracies function on the notion that most people have no idea what they're talking about, and vote randomly. Can you expand on this? I have no idea what you mean. In what way do most people vote randomly?
  - dartos 2y ago
    The theory is: In aggregate, the result of uninformed people voting would be more or less the same as voting randomly. Not that people vote without thinking.
    - em-bee 2y ago
      but that doesn't take into account the influence false reporting in the media has on them. badly or falsely informed is much worse than uninformed.
      - corimaith 2y ago
        Yes, but false reporting isn't coming from just one side is it, it's something all sides can participate in. The way the education system is right now along with societal expectations, people are going to be misinformed rather than admitting to be uninformed.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        In the absolute sense yes, but this thread was framed in comparison to undemocratic systems. The media aren't biased in the direction of making their host country worse off, so their biases aren't negative in that sense. We'd get better outcomes if people in the public discourse held themselves to higher standards; but their low standards don't stop the tendency of marginal voters to bias on rational decision making.
        em-bee 2y ago
        The media aren't biased in the direction of making their host country worse off i don't believe that. at least western media are biased towards majority and conservative views and for profit entities, ignoring or even suppressing minorities and that is making us worse off.
        roenxi 2y ago
        Conservative views are things that worked in the past though. For profit entities are all dedicated to satisfying the needs and wants of people and are part of society too. >90% of all the gains since the industrial revolution came from for-profit entities so it is a stretch to say they are biased in favour of making things worse. Minorities are, by definition, not a group that includes most people so things can get really brutal for them before it starts hurting the greater society. These are all biases that may be politically undesirable to you (the corporate media are basically the vanguard of class warfare, so they should be undesirable to a bunch of people), but they aren't biased in the direction of making things worse at the highest level of abstraction. A rising tide benefits all ships.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  I don’t think that’s true. I’m pretty sure the hope is that people are reasonably well informed. And anyway, we’re voting on representatives, not specific issues, for the most part. (I mean clearly referenda exist, but they aren’t the main thing). Or we’re voting on matters of preference, in which case the populace is essentially correct whatever their decision.
lapcat 2y ago
> HN tends to be - as we might expect - quite good at computers and bad/average [0] at everything else. Who's we? I don't expect that at all. "computers" is such a broad subject, with countless areas of specialty, and in my experience HN commenters are often, all too often, quite ignorant of my particular areas of specialty, though that doesn't stop them from overconfidentally asserting falsehoods about those subjects.
- ThunderSizzle 2y ago
  Ignorant and arrogant. Hard to dialog with someone who embodies both, and I'd agree most of my readings on here include ignorance and arrogance.

rconti 2y ago

I think this is a significant contribution to imposter syndrome. It took me a long time in life to realize that the confidence some people have in their opinions rarely comes from true expertise; rather, it comes from their personality.

throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
Don't let the opposite add too much weight. Meaning, don't believe that all confident people are bullshiting their way. The best are people that have both expertise and confidence. This is one reason I like to stay at a company for many years, the expertise boosts my confidence more than linearly (if that makes sense).

sweeter 2y ago

100%. It's extra disastrous when the topic is polarizing or charged. The topic of US politics for example will very often work off of some false dichotomy or fundamentally flawed premise and twist into some horribly deformed conversation. Try telling someone that "the process of voting doesn't work that way" or try to clear up some common misconception about the economy or crime and it just doesn't go anywhere. People have a lot of false assurance to back up their mode of thinking and it is nearly impossible to break that. In fact, there is an entire economy in vindicating people's beliefs which makes people even more assured. I'm convinced the only proper stance on complex ideas, concepts and topics is that we shouldn't have the hubris to think that we completely understand something or even have a solid grasp.

randomdata 2y ago
Keep in mind that people don't talk about that which they believe they completely understand. When someone reaches a satisfiable conclusion in understanding, they lose interest in the subject and move on to something else. The political discourse around polarizing topics isn't disastrous. It takes place exactly because people realize that they are complex issues not fully understood, and are talking about it in hopes that more information will come to light to help them reach a greater understanding. This is why the more complex the issue, the more it will keep coming up over and over.
- human_person 2y ago
  This is one of the most optimistic but realistic perspectives I’ve heard about online discussions in a long time. Thank you.
  - Anotheroneagain 2y ago
    Let me offer a dark one: human beings are bad at gathering information, inferring the right things from it, and responsibly passing it on to others. It is incredible what we’ve achieved in spite of this All was achieved when it was widely not so, and by people not affected by this.
- 2y ago

slim 2y ago

I like the fact this applies to the comment you are commenting on since it is now the top comment :)