241–250 of 308 posts
> If you tell me you didn’t have a single serious thought of self-assessing today, even semi-conscious, I simply won’t believe you. I stopped reading at this point. Someone that is so certain that they say “I simply won’t believe you.” is too self-assured to be worth paying much attention to.
If you tell me that Earth is flat I simply won't believe you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, do they? The logical reasoning test in that page is a question about lab rat studies on coffee+birth defects, and a hypothetical spokesperson's response that they wouldn't apply a warning label because the government would lose credibility if the study were to be refuted in future. You're then asked a multiple choice question: 1. Which of the following is most strongly suggested by the government’s statement abo…
The second question labeled analytical reasoning is probably closer to what you consider a logical reasoning question, maybe they picked questions more like those?
Now, maybe other researchers designed different more rigorous studies that are replicable and which show the same effect. That could be the case. The point I'm making here is that the DK paper isn't by itself capable of proving the effect it claims, and that you don't need a statistical argument to show that. Sanity checking the study design is a good enough basis on which to criticize it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey omnicognate, good to see you here, appreciated our previous discussion. What you're saying is that we need to verify the statistical reliability of the skill tests DK gave, and to some extent that we need to scrutinize the assumption that there indeed is such a thing as "skill" to be measured in the first place. I hope we can both agree that skill exists. That leaves the test reliability (technical term from stat…
I think the other piece that has been glossed over a bit is that DK are using quantiles (for both the test and the self-assessment). That means everything is bounded by 0 and 1, and you can't underestimate your performance if it was poor, or overestimate your performance if it was perfect. Or conversely, if you're the most skilled person in the room, your (random) actual performance on the day of the test is bounded…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If by “destroyed” you mean “billionaires will happily fund their contrarian research for years regardless of its peer reviews”…
No, I mean researchers and professors suddenly not getting any research grants anymore, suddenly getting fired from their tenured jobs, not being invited anymore to conferences, etc. What billionaire funds “contrarian” research?
The Koch brothers were (and the current brother and estate of the other) are happy to write economists checks to prove laissez-faire capitalism under a libertarian government is the best system. Or that climate change isn't real.
If you're willing to generate evidence climate change isn't real, Exxon etc have some nice checks for you.
If you're willing to show how corn syrup is good for American than the Iowa farmer association has money for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> figure skating, or law Thinking about all the "INAL" answers and the obviously wrong "legal" advice and opinion on legal topics you can come across on HN on a daily basis, I think law is good example of people overestimating their knowledge. Replace figure skating with any other sports, so, and try having discussions about, e.g, a defeat of any soccer team. All of a sudden everyone just became a soccer coach. And…
But is DK not explicitly about assessing yourself and not about assessing others? I feel like being able to critique the performance of others is different from being able to critique yourself. There might be a correlation between the two, but they're not the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One does not need to have done social science research to be able to recognize obvious general philosophy of science level problems with the methods used in much social science. I’d we take your claim seriously then we have to disallow all critiques of the replicatability crisis in the social sciences that don’t come from social scientists, but that would present an obvious new problem: conflict of interest. It’s als…
You are correct - I should have been more precise: I hypothesis parent has not done science research professionally (again happy to be proven wrong). Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending social science research per se (yes, there are questionable methods). I'm critiquing parent who has high confidence in pointing out issues with the DK paper, yet misses the real issues. Which, in the context of discussing whether th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you tell me that Earth is flat I simply won't believe you.
That is factual data. Saying you won’t believe that a person is or is not thinking about something is entirely different.
Actually it is even more ironic. You are too self-assured that a multi-page article is not worth paying attention to because of a single sentence in it that irritates you.
I don't really understand the article. My understanding was that the mistake was that the error bounds differ depending on the test score from the original DK paper. A test score of 0 or 100 means a potential error of 0-100, whereas a test score of 50 means a potential error of 50. So if you take a group of people who score 0-25 points, if their self-assessment is completely random you'd still see a bias of overestim…
If people wander off through the verbiage of any article, where the chatter isn't supported by data, sure, they'll tend to get speculation.