Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dark Side of Expertise

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 51 posts

Re: The Dark Side of Expertise

#21

Post by mjw1007 »

kerkeslager wrote: post #18
mjw1007 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "wrong inputs" here is an odd way of saying that the model was bad (presumably to distinguish that problem from outright bugs in the design software or computer hardware failure). https://eng-resources.uncc.edu/failurecasestudies/building-f... says « The roof design was extremely susceptible to buckling which was a mode of failure not considered by in that particular computer analysis and, therefore, left und…

Okay but again: was this failure because their expertise misled them?

Not as far as I can see, no.

That article contains the following claim: « Computers, however, are only as good as their programmer and tend to offer engineers a false sense of security. »

which matches the "dark side of expertise" talk's bit about « There was an emotional investment that the engineers had made in the new technology, so it was inconceivable to them that it could be giving them the wrong answers. »

That seems to me to be a different issue to being misled by one's own expertise, and in any case neither source bothers to give any evidence that it's true (that is, that the computer's involvement was the cause for the unreasonable trust in the model's results).

Re: The Dark Side of Expertise

#22

Post by kerkeslager »

phkahler wrote: post #19
kerkeslager wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but we don't ever find out why they got the inputs wrong. Does this sound like expertise to you?

They ignored the actual fact that it was sagging more than predicted and insisted the calculations were right. That might be ok, but someone allowed the project to proceed without explaining the contradiction. Real observations were dismissed in favor of believing in the expertise.

Hm. You're saying that inexpert decision-makers were misled by experts?

That is true, but I'd argue that the article is making a different claim: the article is claiming that experts are misled by their own expertise.

Re: The Dark Side of Expertise

#24

Post by dsego »

A eerily similar case of an eruptive fire killing firefighters happened not so long ago (in 2007) in Croatia.[1]

In this case it was most likely that the group of fire fighters did not have time to reach a safety zone and escape. [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Croatian_coast_fires#Korn...

[2] https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/FIVA08/FIVA0...

Re: The Dark Side of Expertise

#26

Post by spaced-out »

phkahler wrote: post #19
kerkeslager wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but we don't ever find out why they got the inputs wrong. Does this sound like expertise to you?

They ignored the actual fact that it was sagging more than predicted and insisted the calculations were right. That might be ok, but someone allowed the project to proceed without explaining the contradiction. Real observations were dismissed in favor of believing in the expertise.

>They ignored the actual fact that it was sagging more than predicted and insisted the calculations were right.

Seems like they lack the expertise needed to properly evaluate their model.

Re: The Dark Side of Expertise

#27

Post by akamoonknight »

kerkeslager wrote: post #22
phkahler wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They ignored the actual fact that it was sagging more than predicted and insisted the calculations were right. That might be ok, but someone allowed the project to proceed without explaining the contradiction. Real observations were dismissed in favor of believing in the expertise.

Hm. You're saying that inexpert decision-makers were misled by experts? That is true, but I'd argue that the article is making a different claim: the article is claiming that experts are misled by their own expertise.

It seems like one difficulty is in knowing what expertise is important? Assumedly the contractors thought they had expertise, but were lacking. The firefighters assumedly thought they had expertise, but we're lacking. What expertise do I think I have, but am actually lacking?

Re: The Dark Side of Expertise

#28

Post by bryanrasmussen »

kerkeslager wrote: post #18
mjw1007 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "wrong inputs" here is an odd way of saying that the model was bad (presumably to distinguish that problem from outright bugs in the design software or computer hardware failure). https://eng-resources.uncc.edu/failurecasestudies/building-f... says « The roof design was extremely susceptible to buckling which was a mode of failure not considered by in that particular computer analysis and, therefore, left und…

Okay but again: was this failure because their expertise misled them?

No. In fact if they were misled by computers and they were not software engineers, which I had assumed they were not from them being called "Design Engineers" in the anecdote, it follows that they were not misled by their expertise but their assumptions of expertise from this unknown mysterious powerful new thing that a lot of money had been poured into.

Re: The Dark Side of Expertise

#29

Post by [deleted] »

kerkeslager wrote: post #10
mjw1007 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also an unexplained leap from "the calculations are correct" to "we should proceed as planned even though it's sagging when it shouldn't". Even if the engineers were infinitely arrogant and assumed nothing could possibly be wrong with the design, you'd expect them to react by saying "you must be building it wrong or using substandard materials", or something.

This is the same annoying problem I found with Malcolm Gladwell's Blink . He draws this conclusion that we can trust our first impressions, but it's really unclear how he comes to that conclusion: some of his evidence comes to no conclusion, and some of it directly contradicts that conclusion.

[deleted]

Re: The Dark Side of Expertise

#30

Post by bryanrasmussen »

mjw1007 wrote: post #7
WhompingWindows wrote: post #2

I don't buy this headline at all, the author does not prove there are actual experts behind this story at all... The primary story used here is that a sagging arena roof was consistently deemed safe by "engineers" (no proof of expertise provided) based upon their calculations...and this is somehow a "dark side" of expertise? It reads much more like ineptitude; that'd be like any coder here constantly ignoring terribl…

There's also an unexplained leap from "the calculations are correct" to "we should proceed as planned even though it's sagging when it shouldn't". Even if the engineers were infinitely arrogant and assumed nothing could possibly be wrong with the design, you'd expect them to react by saying "you must be building it wrong or using substandard materials", or something.

I'm starting to think someone was misled by their expertise into thinking this article was any good.
Post reply on HN