This is a question that is not asked often enough lately. For better or worse, best predictor of human behavior is still what they have done in the past...
I guess they'd argue that the author's identity shouldn't matter and that one should just judge the writing on its own merit. The problem is that we're drowning in information. AI makes its trivial to generate authoritative-looking nonsense. Evaluation is costly. So I prefer to read something which the author has associated with their own identity (which means there's a cost to lying), or has provided some credentials to prove why their opinion matters. Of course there are exceptions (Gwern comes to mind), but I'll only trust them if they're recommended by other writers I trust.
Too often at this point, I saw/heard/read things explained very confidently and yet missing the mark quite a bit.
I think is one of the first things I try to determine when somebody talks to me, when I see a blog, a video, or a comment in HN.
That's just not practical in the real world.
I don't necessarily think that's bad. I do it myself, by posting with usernames that are not directly attached to my own. But there is a certain amount of respect that I give to people that do things with their name attached. They take a risk that many in our society no longer do: they put their name and identity on the line with their opinions. Even public figures who are absolutely reprehensible in about every way possible get a tiny bit of respect from me for having their name attached to their shitty opinions.
Slightly OT, and of course only half anonymous but for example G.S. Bhogal really fits that bill. His posts come up here occasionally and I get a kick out of them but the real gold is in his twitter (1) Don't listen to the haters and make sure to follow for quality life advice (like don't listen to politicians and journalists because they're all corrupt liars, or that "below average IQ" people should reproduce as to not spread their genes, and the really smart people don't need friends or go outside, what they need a "circle" of other highly intelligent people like themselves on X
I do not agree.
I’m not sure in which context you are saying that. But that implies people never change, never learn, never get better. Specially that phrase is used in HR, what is terrible.
There are traits that are hard to change, and things that hardly change, as there are lots of things that do change.
That all being said, I’m totally with you, that the question has to be asked, but not to put the people in a box and never move them. Just to have a reference point in a changing curve.
Ok. I accept that you do not accept my personal opinion.
<< I’m not sure in which context you are saying that.
There are multiple reasons, but speaking from perspective of crime statistics ( and I don't even mean in US, where once you are in the system, it is actively working to keep you in its grasp ), recidivism[1] is common even among prisoners, where the system actively tries to rehabilitate you[2]. I don't want to belabor that point too much though as people tend to take it as a political stance ( and it is not ). That said, those do translate to other less extreme forms of behavior.
<< But that implies people never change, never learn, never get better.
No, it is a common misconception. Going from the original recidivism claim, the rate of recidivism is not 100%, but it is high enough that it gives people pause[2]. In other words, never is never the right or accurate claim here. I can start with more likely yes than not and take it from there if it makes you more comfortable to quibble over details.
<< Specially that phrase is used in HR, what is terrible.
HR is terrible. No disagreement. I have no control over HR or their phraseology.
<< There are traits that are hard to change, and things that hardly change, as there are lots of things that do change.
You may be confusing things a little, but maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Do you want to elaborate?
<< but not to put the people in a box and never move them.
Yes. I accept the concern about being labeled even though you did not voice it. That said, the box remains a box. No amount of language will change its boxy nature. Things just are.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism [2]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis...
Recidivism is a well-studied topic in the social sciences. There is a multi-factor causal chain behind the high-rate of recidivism, driven by the circumstances of the individual (past trauma) that led to incarceration in the first place, the resources available in a particular prison (few are equipped to properly rehabilitate the inmates) and the barriers that society places on reintegration for those individuals. For a prior criminal, the paths to a middle-class existence are few and far between. For professionals, resuming a profession, be it doctor, lawyer, accountant, engineer, etc. is almost impossible with a criminal record. So is holding down a government job, any job in the military or defence requiring a clearance, any positions that may require the public trust, such as working with children. Banks will not provide loans to individuals with a criminal record, making it impossible to start a business.
This is a topic worth reading up on in greater depth.
The whole thing about prison does not apply to work, does it? I mean, I have switched tasks, countries, companies, industries many times. And through it, you could not believe I was the same person, as my behavior was very much influenced by the environment. That was pointed out by people who know me. So the trying to predict the future just doing linear interpolation of the past, no, it does not work with people in the professional environment.
I do believe you it works for convict felons. But I know nothing about it. On the other hand many many times in HN I’ve read comments of people that were in prison, and today are much better and are not looking back. Survivor bias you may say?
One would hope, but similarities are not that easy to ignore. I might even extend it further, because I saw the same approach, for whatever reason, replicated among many grammar level education bodies.
<< In the context of knowing who somebody is, to know if I should take advice from him, I think knowing what somebody did as a predictor does not tell me if he can help me or not.
I disagree in general, but other poster noted that the connection may not be as clear / useful to the discussion. With that in mind, I will try to present a different example.
<< I mean, I have switched tasks, countries, companies, industries many times. And through it, you could not believe I was the same person, as my behavior was very much influenced by the environment. That was pointed out by people who know me. So the trying to predict the future just doing linear interpolation of the past, no, it does not work with people in the professional environment.
I will briefly engage in that analogy again. And other prisoners were transferred, went to different prisons, were let out, and so on. For all the steps listed, similar steps for 'non-professional environment' could be reasonably construed.
<< So the trying to predict the future just doing linear interpolation of the past, no, it does not work with people in the professional environment.
Linear? No. Heuristic prediction. Yes.
<< But I know nothing about it.
We are just two minds on the internet. I know what is available to me.
<< On the other hand many many times in HN I’ve read comments of people that were in prison, and today are much better and are not looking back. Survivor bias you may say?
Anecdata vs statistics, but I accept that exceptions exist. We are humans.
***********
Would it help if we changed the example to that serial enterpreneur will likely remain one and continue to find/fund/invest in profitable ventures with a better chance of success than a person that does no? That seems more fitting to HN.