Smart compared to what? Smart compared to how you'd perceive someone talking about a field you know nothing about? Yes, that perception is just an illusion, nobody is that smart. Just because people aren't those infallible bastions of perfect knowledge doesn't mean that they aren't smart, it just means that you now realized that they are just humans and are often wrong about things.
Ask HN: Are people only smart until they talk about things you know more about?
51–60 of 71 posts
Re: Ask HN: Are people only smart until they talk about things you know more about?
#52In my case, it just reaffirms the notion that being a smart fool is not really an oxymoron, and that people at large are fools, myself included. 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 celebrit…
> We all sometimes have a tendency to talk about the things we know jack about
Why not participate in the norm of stating the source of your claims. It's easy enough to start a sentence with "I read in the Guardian" or "If I remember correctly" or "I heard from a professor once".
It even helps just to share your credence in your claim, e.g. "I suspect this is true", or "I'm pretty sure this is how something works".
Re: Ask HN: Are people only smart until they talk about things you know more about?
#53The smartest people I know are generally smart no matter what field you put them in. But everyone has blind spots/biases. I do know a couple of very successful people who aren't that smart but are good at selling themselves/their ideas. Some people look down on this, but it is a good skill to have. HN has a problem where the people who comment are often not that knowledgable but can sound like they know what they're…
You are right about HN folks. I asked this question prompted by a topic discussed here during the past week, in which many people were commenting and sounding like experts. But because I knew deeply about it (having written my Master’s thesis on it), I noticed how mistaken they were — despite making their opinions sound like facts.
It makes me wonder: should this make us disregard many more discussions? Because what if the comments on those are as “untrustworthy” as the comments shown in that thread I know about?
Re: Ask HN: Are people only smart until they talk about things you know more about?
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and they spoke bullshit with a mild air of authority instead of running away, which a sensible person should have done. I think often they're asked because they've expressed interest in a topic or cause, and they realize that any benefit their name and the exposure they have at the moment is wasted if they ignore questions about it. That they misstep is probably no different than any fledgling PR person the first d…
I’ve been thinking about those concrete examples I remember which have driven me to the conclusion I stand by now, and it was always more like “what’s your take on this thing that’s resonating in the news/happening where you live”, and they feel compelled to have an opinion and sound smart and deep on top. It’s likely worse with celebrities who are generally smart and well-read on a wide range of subjects, who think…
Well, I'm not going to act like some people don't interpret their success as a mandate of how exceptional they are overall, and I'm sure being somewhat more intelligent than average in an industry known for sycophants probably leads to some unhealthy mental self image problems. These people definitely seem to exist. I think we should be careful to not let our admiration and displeasure of each set color our interpretations of the other though, and keep in mind some people are just trying to help where they can.
> the popular understanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect
You had me (my upvote) at hello (the acknowledgement of the popular misunderstanding). ;)
Re: Ask HN: Are people only smart until they talk about things you know more about?
#55I always saw intelligence as a willingness to acknowledge what you don't know and withdrawing from comment or discussion about things you don't understand well enough to have an informed opinion on. Unfortunately, this kind of humility/modesty is not rewarded. As we see in the world around us.
I think you're using the word "intelligence" to mean "respectable" or something else that isn't intelligence at all. Perhaps similar to how people use "stupid" to mean something that hurts them - "The stupid fly won't let me kill it!".
Re: Ask HN: Are people only smart until they talk about things you know more about?
#56> But when they talk about a topic you know very well, you realize they aren't that smart. In the historical academic and intellectual epicenter of the US (East Coast college towns), the rule about not talking about a subject in which you are not an expert is still somewhat followed. It is completely shattered in SV and coastal cities + DC Case in point: "Zero cases by the end of April, bruh...you gotta stop panickin…
Interesting distinction between east and west coast! Could it be because academic fields are less influenced by “looks and impressions”, while SV/technology fields are easily manipulated by people who appear to be experts?
As in: in academia if you say something, people are trained to analyze the veracity of that, and to judge you based on your methodological/academic rigor. Meanwhile, in SV people judge you on past projects and financial conditions, which are not tied to knowledge about reality at all. I don’t know if any of what I am saying is factually correct, I’m just guessing and wondering. Don’t take it as fact, just my biased, un-founded opinion created around what I see online.
Re: Ask HN: Are people only smart until they talk about things you know more about?
#57> But when they talk about a topic you know very well, you realize they aren't that smart. In the historical academic and intellectual epicenter of the US (East Coast college towns), the rule about not talking about a subject in which you are not an expert is still somewhat followed. It is completely shattered in SV and coastal cities + DC Case in point: "Zero cases by the end of April, bruh...you gotta stop panickin…
Interesting distinction between east and west coast! Could it be because academic fields are less influenced by “looks and impressions”, while SV/technology fields are easily manipulated by people who appear to be experts? As in: in academia if you say something, people are trained to analyze the veracity of that, and to judge you based on your methodological/academic rigor. Meanwhile, in SV people judge you on past…
I think it's because those who have knowledge of financial and human capital are the ones who make the final sprint of the marathon of problem solving.
When the science is knocking on heavens door after years or decades of struggles they feel the opportunity of commercial success and come out of the woodwork to make the last effort to finally push the pile over the goal line by making adjustments in how human capital and financial capital are deployed.
Re: Ask HN: Are people only smart until they talk about things you know more about?
#58Every time I see news coverage of technical areas in which I have expertise, and they get something glaringly wrong, I wonder for a moment how much other stuff they're getting wrong when I don't notice because it's outside of my specialization. Frankly terrifying, since the news shapes opinions for most people.
Indeed. In my experience, the bad feeling gets even worse when noticing something wrong in something you are not specialised at all. However to your point, Michael Crichton describes the rather sad "Gell-Mann amnesia effect": One tends to still trust the other pages of the magazine.
Hopefully people don’t use TV news or newspapers as their only sources of information. Newspapers are good for getting a feeling for what’s currently going around in the world – but one also need to complement them with other publications. E.g. books, meta-studies, etc.
Let’s take an example: If I want to know what’s going on in Yemen this week, I’m probably better of reading The Economist than borrowing a book at the library. But if I want to get a deeper understanding on the situation in Yemen, I’m probably better off reading a book rather than a news article.
Re: Ask HN: Are people only smart until they talk about things you know more about?
#59As someone already noted; there is a a cognitive bias called The Halo effect, which might explain the initial belief that a person you considered knowledgeable in one area must be an expert in all areas. Possibly what you are describing is a sense of disillusionment upon realizing that this is not the case?
Re: Ask HN: Are people only smart until they talk about things you know more about?
#60Get off your high horse. Smart people suffer Dunning-Kreuger too. I've delved quite deep into a specialty, to the point that anybody capable of even understanding what I'm talking about will have some intuition about what should work. They're usually very wrong. Does that make them stupid? No. Their ideas are simply lines of thought that I've plumbed deeply in years' past. There are highly non-obvious reasons that the idea doesn't work out. But, sometimes I get surprised by a good idea from left field.
The above doesn't stop me from making guesses about other fields. Does that make me an idiot? No. I do try to be upfront about my naivety, but, I suffer Dunning-Kruger like everybody else, and sometimes I grossly overestimate my confidence. It happens. And that's how we learn.
If you want to talk to somebody smart, look for their expertise. If you want to feel smarter than everybody, only pay attention to your expertise, but remember, you're "not smart" too.
The funny thing about "Gell-Mann Amnesia" is that people make a career out of doing their best to understand 10 years of research in 10 hours, and repackage that for people to understand in 10 minutes. Recalibrate your expectations.