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

A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 438 posts

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#381

Post by afthonos »

pdonis wrote: post #378
afthonos wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decisions have to be made—including doing nothing. Someone is always "ruling". Diffusing responsibility does not change that fact (though it can have other significant benefits). I'm sympathetic to your POV, by the way, because uncritically listening to experts has literally killed millions of people in the past century. But the key word is "uncritically". Pushback is healthy, discussion is super-healthy; my position…

> Decisions have to be made In general, I disagree. Most of the time decisions do not have to be made--more precisely, decisions by "leaders" who get to dictate what everyone must or must not do so not have to be made, and should not be made. Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity. > in any argument, experts should get more weight If "e…

> Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity.

Again, "no decision" is a decision, especially in the presence of alternatives.

> If "experts" is defined as "people who have a demonstrated track record of making accurate predictions in the past", then yes, I agree.

How good must their track record be before they warrant more weight? 100%? 75%? 5% better than an average person's? I think each level warrants different levels of deference. If a perfect oracle speaks, you do what they say. If someone who spent a long time studying a very complex problem has an opinion, you listen carefully, and ask follow-up questions, but you don't pretend that the Google University™ twenty minute crash course on the topic is as informative.

I recognize it's not simple (and it's fraught). But saying "there are no experts" when people dedicate their lives to studying a lot of these phenomena is only true if you demand 100% accuracy.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#382

Post by 77pt77 »

koonsolo wrote: post #104
0d9eooo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe you just don't want to play the game anymore.

I think Buddhism comes close to this.

Not really. Just look at all the abuse going on in Buddhist monasteries and you'll see it's very far from that.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#384

Post by romwell »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #371
GlenTheMachine wrote: post #321

A similar story that I love regarding the infamous Van Halen brown M&M contract rider: “Van Halen was the first band to take huge productions into tertiary, third-level markets. We’d pull up with nine eighteen-wheeler trucks, full of gear, where the standard was three trucks, max. And there were many, many technical errors — whether it was the girders couldn’t support the weight, or the flooring would sink in, or the…

> So, when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl … ...They didn’t read the contract. I don't know that that necessarily follows. It could be that they read it, said "fuck that", and did everything else to spec. Good story tho.

> It could be that they read it, said "fuck that", and did ...

Exactly. You wonder what else they said "fuck that" to because they don't care or think it's not necessary.

An even better case to catch.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#385

Post by pessimizer »

taneq wrote: post #116
fit2rule wrote: post #99

Oh, this is easy. The usual response to such a question is - "you're just an anti-intellectual! Being rich doesn't mean you're smart - any fool can do it! Real non-fools write their opinions down and other fools follow them." /s I've known some utterly immoral people become very, very wealthy - I might've even helped them along the way. The reason I'm not rich and they are, is that they decided they didn't want to he…

> It does, usually, mean that someone wanted to give you money for some reason Isn't that the definition of participation in the economy? You created goods, or provided services, or arranged for goods to be created or services provided, and in exchange people give you money? Cases where people are given money without in some way earning it are far in the minority.

> You created goods, or provided services, or arranged for goods to be created or services provided,

or drank with someone on a regular basis, or married one of their relatives,

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#386

Post by morsch »

asdff wrote: post #81
georgespencer wrote: post #17

This article puts it better than I ever could. I had a similar reaction when I read extremely critical press coverage of some VCs in Europe investing in YPlan, which eventually sold for a nominal amount to Time Out London. The synopsis of all the coverage was: "How could they have spent all that money? And how could the investors have been so STUPID?" My friend Fred Destin wrote a great essay on this[1], and I'll do…

Scale this up to anything and you will want to be governed by a benevolent dictator. Not even senators themselves read the full bills they vote on, and I don't blame them with it being hundreds of pages of reading that could easily be parted out to aides, but the electorate certainly doesn't have this advantage. Maybe 1% of voters are truly informed.

I get the opposite message: You're saying (and I agree) that even a small group of people chosen to be dedicated to making informed decisions is not able to keep up with the demands it puts on them, specifically they need to make decisions based on very partial information. How is a benevolent dictator supposed to do better? That doesn't make sense.

At least in theory the wisdom of crowds can do better. In practice, it's often hard to argue.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#387

Post by pdonis »

afthonos wrote: post #381
pdonis wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Decisions have to be made In general, I disagree. Most of the time decisions do not have to be made--more precisely, decisions by "leaders" who get to dictate what everyone must or must not do so not have to be made, and should not be made. Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity. > in any argument, experts should get more weight If "e…

> Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity. Again, "no decision" is a decision, especially in the presence of alternatives. > If "experts" is defined as "people who have a demonstrated track record of making accurate predictions in the past", then yes, I agree. How good must their track record be before they warrant more weight? 100%? 75%…

> "no decision" is a decision

"No decision" by leaders in a situation where there is not sufficient justification for ordering everyone to do or not do something, is not the same as "no decision" period. Individuals are still making decisions.

> How good must their track record be before they warrant more weight?

Good enough that their predicted benefits from a policy are reliable enough to justify the costs and risks of that policy.

> If someone who spent a long time studying a very complex problem has an opinion, you listen carefully

Not if they have no track record of accurate predictions. "Studying for a long time" is not a good proxy for that. Lots of people study complex topics for a long time without ever making any accurate predictions.

> saying "there are no experts" when people dedicate their lives to studying a lot of these phenomena is only true if you demand 100% accuracy

You're missing the point. It's not that the accuracy has to be 100%. It's that you're looking at the wrong thing. It doesn't matter how long someone has spent studying a topic. All that matters is their predictive track record. Looking at anything else just distracts you from what matters.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#388

Post by LanceH »

asdff wrote: post #357
znpy wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding sports, most people fail to understand that most professional sport association (like football "clubs") are actually entertainment companies. The sport is just the bait for the spectators. A coach might choose a certain player over another just because the people acclaim him/her. Also, don't forget that scandals about rigged games are quite regular nowadays.

The american model is certainly entertainment focused, but the european football model at least has youth leagues and a lot more local outreach than a given american pro team in their host city.

But they still make decisions on who to play (partially) based on who puts butts in seats.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#389

Post by jschwartzi »

romwell wrote: post #384
michaelcampbell wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown M&M in that bowl … ...They didn’t read the contract. I don't know that that necessarily follows. It could be that they read it, said "fuck that", and did everything else to spec. Good story tho.

> It could be that they read it, said "fuck that", and did ... Exactly. You wonder what else they said "fuck that" to because they don't care or think it's not necessary. An even better case to catch.

Yeah. I'm imagining the guy who says "fuck that" to picking the brown m&ms out as the same kind of person who goes "10A circuits should be fine. They build safety margins into those" or "those rafters should be fine to hold 2 tons of equipment. They're really stout 2x6's." You know, the kind of person who just assumes they know better and that what is planned doesn't matter. And if you let them do that they will totally kill you with their negligence.

Re: A lot of “idiotic” things have reasonable explanations (2011)

#390

Post by pessimizer »

krapp wrote: post #238
robert_g wrote: post #223

Dismissing a successful person but seeming "dumb" person is a benefit to them. Now, they can continue succeeding with less scrutiny. For a long time I thought many politicians were "dumb" based on their public comments, propelled only by their connections. Now, when I look up some politicians who's spouting objectively false / misleading statements and find they've graduated a top-tier university and have a JD I real…

US politicians often act "dumb" because Americans mistrust intellectualism and "book smarts," but they trust plain-spoken cowboys who shoot from the hip and speak like common people. Hillary Clinton attended Wellesley and Yale, and speaks like someone who did, and many Americans hate her. GWB attended Harvard and Yale, but he played up the stereotypical Texas country-boy stereotype and fumbled over his words, and got…

> Hillary Clinton attended Wellesley and Yale, and speaks like someone who did,

Hillary Clinton put on a terrible fake Arkansas accent for the beginning of her political career, talked about baking pies, and quoted country-western songs in interviews. The reason she uses her natural accent in her later career is because she has positioned herself as a "wonk," and often against Republicans who were doing folksy.

i.e. she's looking for a different set of Americans to "fall for it." Trying to appeal to an audience who thinks that everybody else is a sucker and they're the shrewd one.

When she goes to black churches, she puts it on again. Instantly starts dropping her g's and praising the lord like she would never do in a white church.

Post reply on HN