We Are All Confident Idiots • Hacker News Board

Re: We Are All Confident Idiots

#151

Post by vinceguidry » Wed, Oct 29, 2014, 3:48 AM UTC

obitoo wrote: post #78

vinceguidry wrote: post #76

The article makes a few generalizations about evolution that don't really hold up. The idea that evolution does not have agency needs to be re-examined in the light of the fact that animals themselves have far more agency than we realized. To use the author's example, cheetahs may well have all decided as a group to run faster, in the sort of 'social learning' way that we're just now starting to really get a grip on.…

"...we don't know how genomes hold on to experiences and then pass them along to our offspring. " Err they don't. That's Lamarckism theory, and I wasn't aware there was even a shred of evidence towards it. Sometimes when you don't know how something happens, its because it isn't actually happening

I had something I'd wanted to say but it got lost in the above post. I'm just now remembering what that was so I'll try again to explain it.

You don't actually need any information or experience to pass through to the next generation for behavior today to affect long-term evolution. Even if the only thing that's going on is that a population is using social learning to bring individuals closer to their genetic potential in one way, that way will be selected for in future generations. The genome itself could acquire adaptations during life, and those adaptations will then pass to their offspring. One would expect these 'mutations' to be really small, but add up quickly over successive generations.

Re: We Are All Confident Idiots

#152

Post by ctchocula » Wed, Oct 29, 2014, 11:13 AM UTC

leeber wrote: post #119

I think if you're truly (1) confident about your knowledge or mastery of a particular topic and (2) actually are knowledgeable, you don't have trouble admitting things you don't know. Here's what I really hate though. When you are around multiple people who are the type to claim knowledge about things they truly have no idea about. For example in social situations or work situations and you have multiple of these typ…

George Carlin said it best: 'And it doesn't take you very long to spot one of them does it? Take you about eight seconds. You'll be listening to some guy... you say... "this guy is fucking stupid!" Then... then there are some people, they're not stupid... they're full of shit. Huh? That doesn't take very long to spot either, does it? Take you about the same amount of time. You'll be listening to some guy... and saying, "well, he's fairly intelligent... ahh, he's full of shit!"'

Re: We Are All Confident Idiots

#153

Post by reddytowns » Wed, Oct 29, 2014, 12:06 PM UTC

I would have liked this article more if they had left out the word "All" in the title

Re: We Are All Confident Idiots

#154

Post by byEngineer » Wed, Oct 29, 2014, 2:21 PM UTC

thedufer wrote: post #140

byEngineer wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, certainly. Many things can go differently. For one the US President, Obama, might go there on TV and tell: "My fellow Americans. Starting tomorrow we are raising taxes by 10-25%. We cut social security. We cut military. We cut across the board. Why? Because the Chinese demand their money!" Possible? Of course! Probable? Your call. Inflating the monetary base is actually doing the same, but without the need to ra…

> Some things, like 600% debt to GDP ratio that currently the US has are just facts of life. That's...not true. I don't know where you're getting your information, but the ratio is about 106%. They're both in the range of $17 trillion.

The data you have from the U.S. Gov is false as it down NOT include benefits like social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc that are substantial part of the budget. Once you include these guarantees among other guarantees ( like the bank guarantees ) you are looking at 600%

Re: We Are All Confident Idiots

#155

Post by triangleman » Wed, Oct 29, 2014, 2:28 PM UTC

jackpirate wrote: post #141

gjm11 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an idea that recurs throughout history. We've got Socrates and Shakespeare already mentioned in the thread, to which I'll add: W B Yeats: "The best lack all conviction, and the worst / Are full of passionate intensity." Bertrand Russell: "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." Charles Darwin: "Ignorance more frequently be…

>W B Yeats: "The best lack all conviction, and the worst / Are full of passionate intensity." I always read this quote by Yeats as a lamentation about the status of the world, similar to your Russel quote that's a bit more explicit. But the Socrates quote is clearly not in this vein... It never occurred to me before that Yeats might be more in line with Socrates than with Russell. You can read him as praising the bes…

Read the source, it's rather famous.

Re: We Are All Confident Idiots

#156

Post by gwern » Wed, Oct 29, 2014, 5:31 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #150

gwern wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'would' is ambiguous because the author is describing something in the past. For example, you would write 'would' regardless of whether the original question was "Ma'am, do you think Clinton's appearance yesterday on America's Got Talent will damage his legacy?" or if the question had actually been "Miss, do you think Clinton accepting his recent invitation to appear on AGT would damage his legacy?" But either way, t…

Still not bluffing, because they are only speculating on the self-contained scenario, not bringing in fake details.

It is still bluffing because the scenario is not being presented as a hypothetical.

Re: We Are All Confident Idiots

#157

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Oct 29, 2014, 6:13 PM UTC

gwern wrote: post #156

Dylan16807 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still not bluffing, because they are only speculating on the self-contained scenario, not bringing in fake details.

It is still bluffing because the scenario is not being presented as a hypothetical.

If you don't pretend you've heard of it before, it's an abstract scenario that might as well be hypothetical. You're answering based on the question and only the question.

Re: We Are All Confident Idiots

#158

Post by thedufer » Wed, Oct 29, 2014, 7:08 PM UTC

byEngineer wrote: post #154

thedufer wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some things, like 600% debt to GDP ratio that currently the US has are just facts of life. That's...not true. I don't know where you're getting your information, but the ratio is about 106%. They're both in the range of $17 trillion.

The data you have from the U.S. Gov is false as it down NOT include benefits like social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc that are substantial part of the budget. Once you include these guarantees among other guarantees ( like the bank guarantees ) you are looking at 600%

A quick internet search shows that one person came up with that estimate and published it without any actual calculations. I'd be curious to see the calculations, if only to point out what happens when a non-economist tries to make such calculations.

And the whole point is moot, because Medicare and Medicaid obligations can be easily lowered by legislation. Which is why the actual debt number is the one that matters.

Re: We Are All Confident Idiots

#159

Post by bryanlarsen » Wed, Oct 29, 2014, 7:18 PM UTC

iconjack wrote: post #63

bryanlarsen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a standard fallacy I often run into: over estimating second order effects. Yes, unless the ball is perfectly smooth or in a vacuum you will get slight curvature. But it would be so slight that it would look like B.

Try it with a ping-pong ball (a natural choice). The curvature coming out of the tube will not be slight.

None of the three choices in the diagram are curved, though.

Re: We Are All Confident Idiots

#160

Post by PavlovsCat » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 12:14 AM UTC

jeangenie wrote: post #116

PavlovsCat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erich Fried wrote a poem called "Angst und Zweifel", it goes roughly like this: do not doubt the one who says he is afraid but be afraid of the one who says he knows no doubt

Is this your own translation?

Yes, I made it for the occasion :) It's a bit awkward though, "the one" would better be translated with "him"; I wanted to make it gender neutral and couldn't think of anything good. Wikiquote translates it as "Do not doubt him who tells you he is afraid, but be afraid of him who tells you he has no doubts."