Hacker News Reader

Comment by endisneigh | Hacker News Reader

It is interesting that a forum filled with a disproportionate amount of techies still fall for such biases

Technical ability and knowledge just doesn't correlate with critical thinking at all. At worst, it makes you more likely to fall into that common trap of believing you're "smart" and therefore know everything about everything.

I would say it does correlate with some type of critical thinking, but not the one related to social/cultural/philosophical issues. What I say might seem strange at first, because critical thinking is presented as some kind of super-universal skill that you can freely apply to anything but in fact it's not. Kinda like one would think that a good singer would automatically make a good dancer because of being able to feel the rhythm etc. but in reality the correlation is not as strong as one would expect.

The idea that someone who is a good singer would also be a good dancer is a non-starter for someone applying critical thinking, in my opinion.

Do you have any other examples where you think critical thinking abilities cannot be universally applied?

:) can I please get an explanation why it's obvious to you that there is not correlation between singing and dancing ability? I'm genuinely curious EDIT: I can't dance nor sing for shit so I guess I'm a living example of falling victim of some sort of logical fallacy.

they're two totally different skills

wow, such a great and detailed explanation!

wow, such a testy response.

Okay,singing requires manipulation of your voice (diaphragm + airways. You also need to know the correct posture to keep,but its not 100% necessary).

Dancing requires manipulation of your feet, legs, hips, shoulders, arms, hands, and head. Sometimes your belly and butt as well.

Just having a sense of rhythm isn't good enough. You can bob along to a rhythm with 100% accuracy, and not be "dancing." You need to know how to move your body in a way that is rhythmically accurate and pleasing to the eye, coordinating different body parts in alternating, but synchronized patterns. It's a totally different skill set. Musicians,for example, are often very reluctant dancers.

But sense of rhythm and good hearing is required to both singing and dancing. So there is a common skill. Singing requires manipulation of your body (diaphragm) and so does dancing, so your muscle coordination must be good, again common skill. And it just happens that there is not a single famous singer that behaves on scene like a typical non-dancer you can observe in a club. So obviously there is some correlation between singing and dancing. It might not be very strong but it's obviously there and categorically saying that there is no such correlation what-so-ever is really strange.

There are a lot of famous singers that don't dance on stage. Neil Young, Kurt Cobain, Geddy Lee, Bob Dylan. Having a sense of rhythm and a good ear just aren't enough to make you a good dancer.

Your examples of singers that don't dance on the stage don't prove that they can't, but just that they don't want to. I was asking about someone who is a well known singer but actually tries to dance but really can't and it shows. And again, we are talking about correlation, and not exact match of skills. So it wouldn't mean that a great singer is automatically a _great_ dancer, too. Just that if someone is really good at singing he is likely to be pretty good at dancing but not necessarily exactly as good. Maybe that's part I didn't articulate clearly earlier.

I guess being around musicians my whole life i've never considered that there would be a correlation, cause the skills aren't transferrable.

And you were with them when they casually danced in clubs and you saw they actually can't dance? Or you are around that that kind of musicians that actually never ever dance for fun at their leisure?

Went to many music festivals, clubs, dances with them. They couldn't dance. They weren't incapable of learning how to dance. They just weren't automatically good at dancing because they were good at playing music.

I don't think there is an obvious correlation or obvious absence of correlation. In some sense, it's heuristics all the way down; but where one might see an obvious correlation, the one who is applying critical thinking sees only a possible correlation.

You didn't provide any argument supporting your assertions. So your critical thinking is not really that critical, because you can't really defense your claim.

That applies especially here:

“Preposterous, my vast intellect can easily overcome anything!”

I'm too old to know everything.

I think a significant factor is tech skews young. Once your gem turns black, it's time for carousel. (Amusingly, if you understand that reference, you're probably already older than many tech companies are comfortable with).

Why would techies be less susceptible to bias compared to the general population?

That statement itself seems like it would be a cognitive bias.

Many parts of computer science are literally nothing but pure wrangling of thought with logic. Fighting bias systematically is a major part of the trade.

Computer Science is the worst named discipline. Many times when reading code it's like a window into someone else's mind, or a direct window into your own confused mess of a mind from the past.

Problem is, it's really really complicated, and no matter how good you get, or how much practice you put in, it still feels like we humans are trying to fly by flapping our arms.

I only recently started working with SWE type folk in the last few years and while they are, on average, the smartest people I have ever met, they’re also some of the least well-rounded and most siloed minds I’ve ever encountered.

You find it interesting that techies are people?

I find that interesting.

For the record, the only cognitive fallacy I admit to is denial.

It would be far more surprising if it wasn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com