Hacker News Reader

Comment by wolf550e | Hacker News Reader

The non-consensus outsiders who make progress have done the reading. They know what the consensus is, they know all the concepts and the jargon, and they disagree about something. Your post can be interpreted to mean "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge". That's anti-vax thinking and argument. That is not a way to make progress.

View on HN

I would frame this on two axis: 1) outsider vs establishment 2) expert vs layperson

My opinion (see below for how I have defined these)

Outsider expert > establishment expert for public ally challenging and overturning norms

Any expert > layperson on the basic facts (ignoring statistical aberrations, of course)

“Outsider” being unconstrained by norms, not afraid to be cast out of a long established peer group

“Expert” has deep grasp of contemporary facts, second and third order consequences, puts in controls to remove cognitive biases, deep curiosity and healthy scepticism.

“Layperson” being someone who is probably intelligent, but grasps quickly onto unfamiliar concepts and data and makes heuristic calls based on limited data.

Note the Dunning Kruger effect too!

So Michael Mauboussin is kinda of my obsession in this area. Basically, if it's a field with a lot of luck involved in outcomes, don't trust the experts (finance and economics). If it's heavily skill based (chess), trust the experts.

The non-consensus outsiders who make progress have done the reading. They know what the consensus is, they know all the concepts and the jargon, and they disagree about something.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Pretty well captured by that old comedy sketch "The expert" [1]

I dare say that most people here on HN have been hit by upper management telling them to do something stupid or impossible. I'd even wager that most have had them get defensive when you try to explain why doing X isn't a good idea.

That's effectively what I see when someone criticizes "experts" broadly and generally. I've long accepted that there are many individuals that know a lot more about subjects I know little about. While I have a pretty good read on things related to computers, I'm more than willing to admit that I'm not an expert in science, medicine, climatology.

So who should I trust? Should I trust the youtuber that's "Found" the secret that the "so called experts" are trying to hide from the public? Or should I look to the actual experts actually working in the field and take their word for it? Or do I take the harder route and try and build understanding on the subject on my own?

I certainly have tried to expand my personal understanding in general. However, what I've found is that by and large the experts actually know what they are talking about. You should generally trust them. The place where I've found a LOT of misinformation is the "skeptics" that hurl doubt without evidence while denigrating "experts". That is the place where I've found outright lies.

Evidence of such BS artists include Flat earthers, Anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers. Those are all flat out wrong positions. There's mountains of evidence and experts against each of those positions and mostly lies or misrepresentation in favor.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

If an old, grey haired scientist tells you something is possible, he's probably right. If he tells you something is impossible, he's probably wrong.[1] But if a hundred scientists tell you something, they might be wrong but it's still the way you want to put your money.

[1] As the saying goes.

> [1] As the saying goes.

It's from Arthur C. Clarke.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/155962-when-a-distinguished...

The Expert sketch is all dramatic and frustrating, I rather like the Mitchell and Webb spoon design sketch for a quieter view of the problems of designing and communicating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu9nhExp5KI

(y'know, if you're faced with something which seems obvious, and the expert is struggling, why? And should you simply trust them and give up? Why is the extra "explanation" just the same thing repeated again and again? How difficult it is to say "I still don't understand" after several of these explanations. And then at the end it's less clear whether the request is reasonable, if you use spoons as a proxy for other things).

I certainly have tried to expand my personal understanding in general. However, what I've found is that by and large the experts actually know what they are talking about.

Right. It's the expert's blind spots that contain the best nuggets of value.

Experts are almost always right, assuming their assumptions are infallible. The skeptic's criticism is often not directed at the expert's conclusions but their axioms.

Red lines with green ink --> use a thermochromic ink, change the temperature.

7 lines all perpendicular to each other --> sure, in 7+ dimensions.

Solve the climate crisis --> geo-engineering.

Yep exactly. For every one outsider that gets it right, how many are wrong? I'd wager, quite a bit

Expertise is not a Boolean. I'd trust a qualified physicist to make useful predictions about quantum devices, an EE to model an analog circuit, and a structural engineer to design a bridge that doesn't fall down.

But financiers, bankers, and economists have a much less convincing record - and that's after you filter out the ones who have been caught breaking the law.

I always hear these sorts of criticisms of economists and financiers but I just don't think they hold water overall. Usually when I hear econ get flak the conversation rapidly devolves into criticisns of the abstract fairness of a solution rather then its priorities and effectiveness within the context. You see this constantly in the US when politicians from either side talk about the bank bailouts, the national debt, minimum wage, immigration, etc. Suddenly, rather than having anything resembling a sober and informed discussion about the topic and the current expert consensus, everyone just starts soapboxing about fatcats and entitlement while larping as intellectuals as they promote fringe 'theories' that happened to coincide with their political objectives. Meanwhile the actual economists and their suggestions get either drowned out or misrepresented.

Very well said, thank you. That was my objection, too. Outsider is a meaningful distinction in that they're still a domain expert (or something), just not inline with the standard.

What the OP comment was citing wasn't that. Rather, it was people like me - reading that document, not knowing the terms but assembling some form of self reinforced "knowledge".

There's a difference between very well informed outsiders which rival experts and random people. Thinking I know more about vaccines and the dangers than researchers, doctors, etc is moronic. I have no foundation to be making that decision, and beyond the obvious "free will" arguments, i shouldn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com