61–70 of 74 posts
When you talk with a real expert on a topic, you can tell immediately, because answers are comprehensive yet short as well as answers to follow up questions.
Some even manage to explain things easier to understand at the same time.
Here's an example making the rounds, originally from 2022: there is systemic bias in Americans' understanding of US national statistics about all kinds of subgroups: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/41556-americans-misestimat... (Although, apparently the poll didn't ask how uncertain they were. The question was, "If you had to guess, what percentage of American adults...")
The total of the estimates of minority group percentages is well over 100%!
To me it seems, most of the time people will skip their knowledge gaps when explaining things, convincing themselves that there are none. When you talk with a real expert on a topic, you can tell immediately, because answers are comprehensive yet short as well as answers to follow up questions. Some even manage to explain things easier to understand at the same time.
One can be an expert on a topic and produce research, or tools, or predictions, but could be terrible at pedagogy or communicating those thoughts to those outside of the field.
People are really quick to forget that there is an entire field of study dedicated to teaching people, and the reason there is this field of study is because its a lot more complex then people would like to think. Lots of smart people fall for this trap constantly thinking that "well I'm smart, so what I say must be smart", but then completely missing that their communication or output is off the mark entirely for an intended audience. Those people tend to then just shrug it off as "well they're stupid" (on the harsh end) or "well they don't know enough about X to understand this..." (on the less harsh end) rather than ever considering "could I have delivered or explained this better"?
It is very difficult to explain complex things in simple terms. It's probably the most complex thing humans cognitively do (synthesis vs analysis). Synthesizing a complex and very dynamic system or topic into analogies that are both (a) accurate models/shapes of the original and (b) understandable for non-experts is its own challenge separate from even understanding the topic itself at an expert level.
Everyone should be required to sign up for a year of being followed around by an inquisitive child who will pockmark the landscape of their knowledge with exploratory boreholes. I have multiple environment and science degrees and feel generally knowledgeable and my oldest will put on his best Feynman face and be entirely unsatisfied when I offer and explain “Rayleigh scattering.” I love it. I love it so much. I love…
> pockmark the landscape of their knowledge with exploratory boreholes I've got a PhD in particle Physics. I develop the geometry module of machine tools. I got lost when an auntie tried to explain crochet to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100 percent can relate on the relentless curiosity of a child. I was dumbfounded yesterday by this question -> if cars go at high speed, and breaks stop it suddenly, how come the friction doesn't generate enough heat to start a spark?
My kid is like this too. They love asking questions, and one answer usually leads straight to another. Sometimes it feels endless.
Everyone should be required to sign up for a year of being followed around by an inquisitive child who will pockmark the landscape of their knowledge with exploratory boreholes. I have multiple environment and science degrees and feel generally knowledgeable and my oldest will put on his best Feynman face and be entirely unsatisfied when I offer and explain “Rayleigh scattering.” I love it. I love it so much. I love…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100 percent can relate on the relentless curiosity of a child. I was dumbfounded yesterday by this question -> if cars go at high speed, and breaks stop it suddenly, how come the friction doesn't generate enough heat to start a spark?
It's ironic that AI today may give curious kids answers quicker if not better than asking humans or searching the web did.
Only kidding. Kinda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The total of the estimates of minority group percentages is well over 100%!
do be fair, so is the truth. One can be both transgender and jewish (or a military veteran and live in texas!), theres no contradiction in that. In fact I would expect that most people are a minority in at least one way (note the presence of things like "live in new york" in the minorities there!)
"Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)."
in some sense you could push science so far ahead, germ theory, the structure of the atom, the immune system, silicon chips. All these "broad stroke" discoveries that you already know about. But when it comes down to brass tacks what is it worth? Like I know how a thermos works, and why it works, but heck if I know how one would actually consistently manufacture an evacuated double walled container. sent far enough back you would need to invent the vacuum pump, machines, maybe even steel itself just to produce a simple thermos.
makes you realize for all your knowledge you really never know absolutely everything, and that even simple things rely on chains of discovery, manufacturing and a whole lot of little details that we just don't think about ever.
A good test of this kind of thing is the "jump-start civilization" game. Basically imagine oneself sent back in time and think about how useful or likely useless all your modern knowledge would be at different periods. in some sense you could push science so far ahead, germ theory, the structure of the atom, the immune system, silicon chips. All these "broad stroke" discoveries that you already know about. But when i…