Ask HN: Are people only smart until they talk about things you know more about?

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

We all sometimes have a tendency to talk about the things we know jack about while posing as experts because we read an article in the Guardian about it once, or an abstract from a paper. Some more than others.

In the world of show business and television, I’ve seen celebrities — singers, stand up comedians, those kinds of people — often being asked about their stance on complicated political issues or life advice as such — and they spoke bullshit with a mild air of authority instead of running away, which a sensible person should have done. The thing, though, is, that the fact they are celebrities means there are crowds of fans who will listen to whatever they say as if it was God’s own truth.

Hey, you can treat what I just wrote as uninformed bullshit, likely you even have reasons to, like data to contradict my statements. It’s ok. I’m likely a fool.

Before even trying to assess the accuracy of a story, I have to take a step back and assess the competence of the source. Read some other stuff they've written. Is any of it on matters I'm well-acquainted with? Do they seem fuzzy on basic facts, or have clear and cogent explanations? Does any of it open my eyes to new perspectives even on things I thought I knew? Is the new story in a field they seem to have competence in?

Then, I look at the facts presented in the story in question. Assume I don't have my own sources for the facts, but I can look at how they're presented: Are they clearly explained and sourced? Do they have the logic wrapped in a lot of inverting layers (judge blocks appeal of injunction against measure that would've prohibited another activity, wait what? is that a green light or a red for the activity?) which they successfully unwrap for the reader, or are we left to fend for ourselves? Can I take some of the named sources and go look at their own writings and see if they're being quoted accurately?

Then I look at the emotional language surrounding the factual statements. Do they seem to have a horse in this race and incentive to push one side, or is their opinion merely a product of being informed about it? (I'm willing to accept that researching a story naturally produces an emotional narrative, and conveying that can be an important part of context, but the facts should shape the narrative, not the other way around.) Is there enough information that I can imagine the other perspectives that might surround these facts? Do I want to go dig some up?

Or, to put it the other way, stupidity and ignorance are two separate things. All of us are ignorant of more things than we're knowledgeable about -- even the geniuses among us.

Get a really smart person to talk about something that they have little special knowledge about, and they aren't going to seem any smarter about it than most other people.