[HN Gopher] Experts from a world that no longer exists ___________________________________________________________________ Experts from a world that no longer exists Author : yarapavan Score : 246 points Date : 2021-11-20 15:16 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.collaborativefund.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.collaborativefund.com) | polskibus wrote: | Timing is king. If you know when the current experts will become | the old fools, and bet on it, you can be the richest man ever. | It's akin to knowing when the stock will rise or fall. Close to | impossible unless you know more than others (and therefore become | an expert ). | cblconfederate wrote: | Not just experts, visionaries too. One that strikes me as odd is | Electric cars. Why just make a 'faster horse'? We can have | battery transport options in all kinds of shapes and forms, why | sell sedans and SUVs and underutilize the road networks? | bigbanggoesbang wrote: | Is Gavin Newsom an expert in putting hair gel into his hair so he | can be a proper hair-gel nazi? | nickdothutton wrote: | What I found interesting is that the period for reappearance of | "failed ideas" is roughly the length of a career. Coincidence or | due to any real effect I don't know. I wrote a little about it | here: | | "Don't be discouraged by the failure of technology or approaches | of the past. If the problem is still important after all this | time then it's a problem worth solving. Don't avoid unsuccessful | solutions. Avoid insignificant problems. Success this time around | could be unlocked by advances in any number of unrelated | disciplines." | | https://blog.eutopian.io/the-next-big-thing-go-back-to-the-f... | jonplackett wrote: | I read a while back that scientific ideas usually take about 50 | years to be accepted. Which means essentially that they never | are accepted, the people who disagree with them just die and | the next generation embrace them. Einstein pretty much hated | quantum mechanics and ended up making a bunch of discoveries | while making every effort to disprove it. | | So if that's how scientists do it - who should be the most | amenable profession to new information and ideas, what chance | do the rest of us have? | dougabug wrote: | > Which means essentially that they never are accepted, the | people who disagree with them just die and the next | generation embrace them. | | This is to some degree the point made in Kuhn's "The | Structure of Scientific Revolutions." | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re. | .. | raziel2701 wrote: | I think the new ideas get accepted when either the old guard | die, and/or an undeniable technology gets created by use of | the new idea. | teddyh wrote: | " _A new scientific truth does not generally triumph by | persuading its opponents and getting them to admit their | errors, but rather by its opponents gradually dying out and | giving way to a new generation that is raised on it._ [...] | _An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by | gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it | rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is | that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing | generation is familiarized with the ideas from the | beginning: another instance of the fact that the future | lies with the youth._ " | | -- Max Planck, 1948 | pfdietz wrote: | I don't think this is accurate. Sometimes the facts are | so plain that the new truth wins (or, at least, the old | truth dies) quickly without much fuss. | | Perhaps the earliest example of this was the destruction | of the Ptolemaic view of the solar system by Galileo's | observation of the phases of Venus. This was a "killer | fact" that rapidly (after 1611) led to abandonment of | that venerable theory, even by its supporters (although | Clavius would die soon after). Sales of the standard | texts on Ptolemaic astronomy, Sacrobosco's _Sphere_ and | Peuerbach 's _Theoricae novae planetarum_ went into | immediate terminal decline. | | A more recent example is the Big Bang's success over the | Steady State model. The cosmic microwave background | radiation was such an overwhelming piece of evidence in | favor of the former that only cranks persisted with the | latter (including unfortunately Hoyle, admittedly.) | auggierose wrote: | Fuck. I don't have that kind of time. | burnished wrote: | I mean.. Einstein did prove himself wrong a bunch he just | hated it. Its not like the work was flawed, or not performed. | Its hard to find the sort of fault in that you seem to be | implying. | flir wrote: | That generational thing sounds a lot like IT's eternal flip- | flop between thick clients and thin clients. (I'm fully | expecting "web browsers are too thick, we need a thin | alternative" to appear any day now). On the back-end, | serverless is time-sharing. | | Your attempt-fail-stigmatise curve has a lot in common with the | Gartner hype cycle. | padthai wrote: | I would argue that the birth of Gemini and the (timid) Gopher | revival have to do with this. They are very far from being | mainstream though. | raziel2701 wrote: | I went through grad school and I saw how change comes about one | funeral at a time. A big shot professor that has made their | name with their pet theory/work will fiercely defend it against | competing ideas, and people will defer to their expertise. It's | not scientific, it's egotistic. They are a wall against | progress that gets removed upon death. These professors can | also create a dogma through their students who also all rely on | the continued success of their theory for their employment. The | incentives are misaligned against accepting new theories if it | means someone will lose prestige. | | This article resonated strongly with me. | notreallyserio wrote: | I can't help but wonder how much better our governments would | operate if the median age of their workers were somewhat | lower (IIRC that's around 45). | chaxor wrote: | This doesn't make any sense. Aging is certainly a problem | that needs to be solved, but the idea that you expressed | here seems to be that younger people are better at their | jobs - which is very wrong. | | This line of thinking is akin to "If less of the postmen | had diabetes, I would get more of my mail faster!" Don't | fall for these ageist logical inconsistencies | ZephyrBlu wrote: | > _but the idea that you expressed here seems to be that | younger people are better at their jobs - which is very | wrong_ | | That is not the idea I took from the GP's comment about | government workers being younger. | | Younger people have a different perspective to older | people. That might lead to a better direction. | | If you think about progress/improvement as a vector, | there's speed and direction. Young and old people might | have the same speed but different directions, and younger | people might have a direction which is more beneficial | long term. | bsedlm wrote: | > Aging is certainly a problem that needs to be solved | | by that logic, childhood is also a problem that needs to | be solved. I have to get metaphysical to argue against | the mindset, but IMO the origin of seeing aging as a | problem stems from seeing death as the opposite of life. | dariusj18 wrote: | Head to Capitol Hill and you'll see that the legislative | side of that is much much younger. Though perhaps the age | of the legislators skews the average. | sidlls wrote: | That's more than a little ageist. Age has little to do with | it. I've worked for--and been managed by--thick-headed, | egotistical 20-somethings and stodgy older folks alike. | | Youth who think they're forging new territory usually | aren't, but there are plenty who think they are and have an | arrogance about it that is insufferable. | msla wrote: | > Youth who think they're forging new territory usually | aren't | | But that's part of the point of the article: The | territory actively changes, so even if it's the same | location in some sense, it's still new territory, ripe | for exploration. Old people can see that, but it requires | looking with fresh eyes, as opposed to only being willing | to see what was there decades ago. | sidlls wrote: | I don't see how doubling down on the ageism brings | anything to the discussion. Old people aren't | "only...willing to see what was there decades ago." | msla wrote: | I didn't imply they were. You're seeing insults I never | made. | toss1 wrote: | Or, you are not seeing insults you did make (however | un-/sub-consciously / unintentionally) | ta988 wrote: | Exactly the reason why I left academia. Egos competing for | space, money or talk-time to defend themselves not the | progress of science. | mnl wrote: | We tend to romanticise it, but in the end it's just another | job. It shouldn't, because selling you doing science is not | the same as doing science, but on the other hand social | expectations are that you must have a job, so what kind of | exemption were we hoping for exactly? Once you realise it's | ordinary people looking for whatever ordinary people look | for anywhere else everything falls into place. Some science | gets done regardless, we're talking about professionals | here. | paulpauper wrote: | Academia can be likened more to a clergy or priesthood | than a job. Although academics are expected to publish, | it's not like the results or output are as tangible or | quantifiable compared to most jobs. | mnl wrote: | Well, it's not that. Output is quantifiable and expected, | try to survive doing your thing before tenure (at least | and don't). Alas, the Republic of Letters is long gone. | Kind of an _ought-is_ problem. | paulpauper wrote: | Cornel West has only published 3-4 or so slim volumes in | 4 decades. how does he still have a job? | mnl wrote: | I don't know, I've mentioned tenure though. I know that | Peter Higgs has published IIRC 11? papers and that he's | talked about his former status at his departament and not | being productive enough for the modern academic system. | throwkway69 wrote: | http://www.cornelwest.com/books.html#.YZlPiWiIY4M | NotSammyHagar wrote: | That was about 15 books, several I've heard of, but it's | unclear about academic papers at least on that web page. | He's clearly making an impact with his ideas. | varelse wrote: | But that's the system we built. Starting in college you're | going to spend a decade and a half studying to be a world- | class expert researching a topic of your own choosing. | | And as soon as you become a professor you stop doing | research and start begging for research funding so others | can do what you did. And no one sees the problem with this | so it continues. | hungryforcodes wrote: | Wow, that's incredibly well expressed. I bookmarked it - I | rarely do that too. | bigbanggoesbang wrote: | Is Nancy Pelosi an expert in insider trading? Damn, I wish I | could get a lucrative government job like that. | CalChris wrote: | > Webvan failed, but Instacart and UberEats are now thriving. | | Instacart has been in business since 2013 and had its first | profitable _month_ last year during the height of the quarantine. | It's probably closer to Webvan than anywhere near Amazon. | Zanfa wrote: | And Uber has made like $25 billion in losses with no end in | sight? | spaetzleesser wrote: | These companies still have no clue how to make profits. I | wouldn't call that "thriving". They are still riding a huge | investment bubble. | gorwell wrote: | There was an amusing example of this yesterday with The Economist | saying, `The sharp increase in inflation over the past year has | blindsided many economists. Almost no one saw it coming` | | https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1461651190144503808 | NikolaeVarius wrote: | The social media person at the Economist is bad at their jobs. | The article goes into the nuances of the claim. | | The specific claims are | | Higher than expected inflation | | > new data showed that America's consumer price inflation rose | to 5.4% in June, well above economists' expectations. On July | 14th it was revealed that British inflation rose to 2.5% in | June, which was also higher than forecast. | | The specific reason high inflation was not expected was because | expected long term slump, which didn't happen | | > Not long ago economists tended to the view that the covid-19 | pandemic would lead to a prolonged slump in the rich world. | That view has not worn well | | > With unexpected growth has come an unexpected spurt of | inflation | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | How dare you soil my single-sentence belief with this filthy | nuance. | Puts wrote: | Well this is not true. There has been debate about an emerging | inflation threat for many years now even long before the | pandemic due to the rapid rate central banks are printing money | to keep the economy floating since 2008. However in the | financial market there are many people whose lives depend on | constant growth creating a strong sentiment to either willfully | mislead the market or just lie to themselves for comfort and | self-preservation. | Mikeb85 wrote: | Lol everyone saw it coming, but policymakers needed everyone to | think it wouldn't come, otherwise the public appetite for Covid | measures would have been far less... | smitty1e wrote: | ZeroHedge has predicted 83 of the last 7 downturns. | paulpauper wrote: | more like 83 of the last 2 downturns | dwiel wrote: | I follow ZeroHedge, but this statistic isn't very helpful | without knowing the number of false positives or incorrect | timing. | jameshart wrote: | At the risk of explaining the joke... | | "predicted 83 of the last 7 downturns" implies a false | positive rate of at least 76 incorrect predictions for 7 | correct ones. | | Of course, if they made 83 downturn predictions but didn't | correctly predict the 7 that actually occurred, thee false | positive rate could also be worse than that. | jointpdf wrote: | It's a reference to a 50+ year old economics joke: https: | //worldin.economist.com/article/17506/edition2020dont-... | fein wrote: | I always remembered this as a Peter Schiff joke. | smitty1e wrote: | Very likely the source. | beckingz wrote: | That's pretty good. How many times were they able to predict | the same downturn? | beamatronic wrote: | I'm still standing for delivery of my physical silver | dorianmariefr wrote: | "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act." | | - Tara Ploughman | dqpb wrote: | Maybe "expert" is no longer a useful term. Instead we could | differentiate between creators and power users. | dorianmariefr wrote: | I don't get the link | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | I think OP is saying is we're moving toward a time when | growing fields are more likely to be saturated by non- | specialists | ksaj wrote: | I've done various forensic-oriented gigs for court cases. I was | always given an titles like "Technical Expert" and sometimes | really specific "Expert" terminology. | | In one case I was brought in only to give a high level synopsis | about how deleted files can often be carved out either in full | or in part, may appear in multiple places at once, sometimes | clearly showing edits, and also come with useful metadata | stored within the directory entries both past and present. | | They referred to me as the "Computer Filesystem Expert" which I | thought was a bit strange, because I'm _not_ what I 'd consider | an expert in file systems. Hell, I only barely know how | journaling works without breaking down. I just know a lot about | a very specific set of details that are useful in a forensic | investigation. | | So there is yet another use of the word "expert" that doesn't | necessarily mean the same thing to everyone. It's not a useless | title in this case, but it's really ambiguous to a person who | understands more than the role requires. | brabel wrote: | This article offers nothing of value IMO... because what it's | saying is basically that experts will, at some point, fail to see | that circumstances have changed and advice that was good in their | own "time" is no longer good... however, that's an obvious | remark: as another commenter pointed out, people almost always | tend to think "this time it will be different" and choose to | ignore the experts... I would say more useful advice would be | that you do that at your own peril: most of the time, nearly | always, the experts will be right... the occasions where things | really will be different are rare and far between. Eventually, a | lucky kid will do well by ignoring the experts, but only after | thousands before them failed doing the same thing. | efitz wrote: | And what if the opportunity cost lost retrying something that | didn't work over and over? Maybe it will eventually succeed but | what else could have happened with the same effort? | paulpauper wrote: | If half the experts say to buy stocks and the other half say to | sell, who is right? Aat some point, you have to decide. I have | observed this a lot with finance. Listening to the wrong | experts would have meant missing out on the biggest bull market | ever (2009) or selling during the lows of the 2020 covid crash. | IncRnd wrote: | You missed about half the article. There was this part (along | with lots of examples), "Some expertise is timeless. A few | behaviors always repeat. They're often the most important | things to pay attention to." | ghaff wrote: | I'm not sure it's so much about timelesss expertise (Although | that exists as well). Rather, the advice is probably | something along the lines that when experts tell you that | some form of the thing you're doing has been tried half-a- | dozen times in the past and has failed--it _probably_ will | fail this time too. However, sometimes the difference from | what was done in the past is sufficient to make it work this | time. Or the surrounding technology ecosystem is | qualitatively different. So it 's worth considering what it | is in today's environment that would invalidate the expert | opinion. | brabel wrote: | I didn't miss it, just ignored it because no one, not even | the experts, konw which part of their expertise is "timeless" | and which isn't (otherwise the problem wouldn't exist in the | first place). | FormerBandmate wrote: | This article strikes me as the height of overconfidence tbh. | The experts are frequently wrong but they're also usually | right, and just blindly ignoring them usually leads to easily | avoidable mistakes. You weigh the opinions of experts and then | discount them when they're wrong, but only when you're _really_ | sure | bratwurst3000 wrote: | How come they are very often two experts with opposite | opinion? Whoever is right can only be proven by time and | mostly by realizing the wrong choice was made. | franze wrote: | I am sometimes called an expert. I strongly focus on things that | I or others already tried and did not work. And then hypothesise | if the circumstances are the same or similar this time around. | Looking for arguments that they haven't changed (enough). | | My track record is ok-ish. | rossdavidh wrote: | "This time it's different." | varelse wrote: | When someone today complains that solar power is still too | expensive, or that cell phones and flat screen TVs in the hands | of poor people proves they aren't really poor, they immediately | flip my Bozo bit. To be fair people who hate nuclear power have | always flipped my Bozo bit although they might have done the job | delaying its adoption long enough for solar power to become | cheaper by now. | streamofdigits wrote: | Experts tend to be specialists, focused on silos and deep dives | into specific domains. | | The world is instead getting radically interconnected as | "everything" is represented - more or less faithfully - by | fungible bits. We are going through an "anti-specialization" | phase, where everything is in principle connected to everything. | | This amorphous digital ocean phase will probably not last, but it | might be decades before a new landscape has settled. | musingsole wrote: | In the future, every individual must be an expert on a single | subject to a currently unimaginable depth. However, expertise | must be simultaneously robbed of prestige and its value | relegated to only its utility. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | _buying stocks at all seemed like nothing but speculation in the | 1920s because corporate disclosures were so opaque. By the 1970s | that had changed, and you could begin to make rational, | calculated long-term decisions that put the odds in your favor._ | | Thriving growth follows sunshine. | | Meanwhile, Govs/Corps compulsively fight transparency. Their only | greater priority is revenge on people who drag them into the | light. | thesausageking wrote: | I can't read a Collaborative Fund post without remembering the | email to a former board member the founder of CircleUp wrote to | the partner there who was on his board: | | https://docs.google.com/document/d/17tEc9ETL4tjfTmNbpwJJ5OSx... | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | > So it will always be the case that those with the most | experience - and the good, smart, accurate wisdom that comes from | it - will be the least willing to adapt their views as the world | evolves. | | This is where I stopped reading, although I will finish the | article. | | He's writing about the stereotype. | | Humility often comes with this experience and wisdom. Some people | are capable of seeing that everything is changing, all the time, | regardless of their personal experience. | | That recognition frees you to embrace new, different, the things | that used to be unthinkable. | pezzana wrote: | > "Don't buy stocks when the P/E ratio is over 20" was a good | lesson to learn from the 1970s when interest rates were 7%, the | Fed hadn't yet learned what it's capable of, and most businesses | were cyclical manufacturing companies vs. asset-light digital | services. Is it relevant today? At a broad, philosophical level, | yes. In practical terms, probably not. In the same sense, buying | stocks at all seemed like nothing but speculation in the 1920s | because corporate disclosures were so opaque. By the 1970s that | had changed, and you could begin to make rational, calculated | long-term decisions that put the odds in your favor. | | The funny thing is that _exactly_ this kind of talk was all the | rage leading up to both the 2000 and 2008 crashes. The boom makes | it impossible to imagine what the bust will look like, and vice | versa. Most people are utterly incapable of seeing 180 degrees | through the business cycle. They simply can 't do it and rather | extrapolate current conditions to infinity. | | This is a big part of boom/bust cycles. They are spaced out by | just enough to entice a new group of greenhorns who ever more | loudly beat the new paradigm drum. Then this new class learns | that the business cycle is in fact immortal. But for many, it's a | short-lived lesson. | | And that part about making "rational, calculated long-term | decisions" is amusing. Because it's during the boom that | companies start to engage in accounting shenanigans. The book- | cooking will all come out in the next bust, just like it always | has. 100x + price-to-earnings multiples will cover a multitude of | sins. | | As Warren Buffet allegedly said, it's only when the tide goes out | that you find out who's been swimming naked. | nly wrote: | The problem is we're all now dependent on stock market | performance to make retirement feasible. Employer guaranteed | defined-benefit pension schemes are dead. | | My uncles pension scheme was structured to pay out 1.5% of his | final salary, inflation adjusted for the rest of his life, for | each year he'd worked. He worked at one company his whole | career, from age 18 to age 55, when he retired. Factoring in | his mortgage, which he paid off prior to retirement, his | disposable income never even dropped when he retired. | | Exact figures don't matter too much, but to achieve that with a | defined-contribution pension you need to invest something in | the range of 15%+ of your gross salary for 30 years and achieve | a 7% above-inflation annualized investment return. And it won't | be final salary but career average. | | Most people aren't doing this so are fucked | redisman wrote: | I don't know how a pensions would work in tech. 95% of the | companies won't exist by the end of your career so who pays | for the pensions? | kristjansson wrote: | One wonders about the actuarial assumptions made by your | uncle's former employer and how, or if, they expected to meet | that obligation. | nly wrote: | The financial planning is the same, the difference is just | in who takes responsibility. | | The bottom line is that many people had this as a benefit | and now very few do. What's unchanged is most people spend | less time thinking about their pension throughout their | lifespan than they do about almost anything else you can | imagine, but they really should be because it's all on | their shoulders now. | | Here in the UK it seems we have a whole generation a couple | of decades away from retirement poverty. | jackcosgrove wrote: | What's changed is that declining population growth and | eventual reversal makes defined benefit pensions | impossible to service. | djbebs wrote: | If history is any indication the answer to both of those | were "they were wrong" and "caused severe financial issues | to the company, if it didn't bankrupt them entirely" | kristjansson wrote: | Exactly, the point of the comment being that generous | defined benefit pension schemes probably aren't some | paneceal solution that capital is now withholding, but | that they were at best a burden and at worst a lie. | actually_a_dog wrote: | How are individuals supposed to have it any easier, | though? Should people just be forced to work until they | drop? Or does everybody now need to be some kind of | financial genius in order to make retirement work? | ghaff wrote: | >He worked at one company his whole career, | | Which was one of the issues with defined benefit plans. They | were structured around long employee tenure. Move around | every few years and you basically got no pension most of the | time. | | I personally think it's unfortunate that most people won't | have defined benefit plans any longer. (I'm glad I'll have | one from a long-ago 10+ year job whenever I decide to start | collecting.) But it's hard to get away from the tenure | requirements unless you make the system portable and then | you're basically creating a shadow social security system. | ChrisLomont wrote: | >most people won't have defined benefit plans any longer. | | Most people never had them. Only a minority of middle and | upper class white men had them for a short period in time. | | Here's some historical tables [1]. For example, in 1975, | 44M people were in one, decently less than half of workers. | | [1] https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/researchers | /stat... | nly wrote: | In the UK the law was changed such that people were given | the freedom to transfer out of their defined benefit | schemes, and most were paid handsome lump sums for doing so | because the schemes were desperately underfunded and wanted | people out | sokoloff wrote: | How does paying a handsome lump sum to leavers help make | them less underfunded? If the handsome amount is less | than the value of the pension, people would leave it in | there. If it's more than the current value of the | pension, the pension fund is left worse off, right? | trenning wrote: | Adding on to your first paragraph about dependency on stock | market performance for retirement. | | 401ks that my generation is used to are a concept only | ~36years old, even at that most companies didn't start | offering them until the 90s. | | It's a very young tool that we're only just now seeing play | out for people reaching retirement age that missed the | ubiquitous pension era. | | And roth IRA was introduced in 1997. | | No comment on any of this being good or bad, I think it's | interesting to look at the historical perspective of it | though. | Mc91 wrote: | Yes. The current p/e ratio of the S&P 500 is 29.59. Prior to | November 1998 it never hit that high in the prior century. So | what has the S&P 500 history been since then? | | It kept climbing from November 1998 until the dot-com crash | started in spring 2000. By Jan 2003 it hit 29.59 on the way | down and went down to 17.46 in April 2007. | | Then the subprime boom started really going and it climbed to | 27.58 by July 2008, hitting 122.39 in May 2009. By October 2009 | it was back down to 20.33 and by September 2011 it was down to | 13.01. | | Then it started its climb again. It was at 22.04 October 2019, | before they were talking about Covid even in Wuhan. It hit | 39.26 in December 2020 and is now back down to 29.59. | | As the poster says, in 1999 and 2000 and in 2007 and 2008 we | were hearing about how we were in a new paradigm unmoored from | the old reality and so forth. At the end of the day, the | economy always came crashing back to earth. In October 1999, | the book Dow 36,000 was published echoing a lot of this | sentiment. The Dow was 10336 the day before the book came out, | then it went down to 7591 by September 2002. In February 2009 | it was at 7062. We just finally hit 36,000 DJIA this month | (before going down again). | spaetzleesser wrote: | The 2000 and 2008 blowups were pretty bad but back then there | were still things that could be done like running deficits or | lowering interest rates. We now have huge deficits and almost | zero interest already during the boom. What can the Fed or | government do during the next downturn? I don't see them having | any tools left to reinflate the bubble. | ItsMonkk wrote: | > They simply can't do it and rather extrapolate current | conditions to infinity. | | This is what I think more people should be paying attention to. | I keep seeing the FIRE(financially independent; retire early) | people talk about the returns they have gotten the past 100 | years, not taking into account that the first 50 of those years | saw tremendous growth, and the last of those 50 years saw | tremendous stagnation and debt that doesn't seem sustainable. | | The world's first billionaire was Rockefeller in the early | 1900's. By 1970 the world's richest man was Hughes, who had | amassed a fortune of $2.5 billion. In 70 years the number | doubled. Since then in the next 50 years the world's richest | man is now Musk, with a wealth 100x that of Hughes at $290 | billion. In 1970 the minimum wage was $1.70 compared to today's | $7.25, an increase of 4.2x. 100x vs 4.2x. | | When you extrapolate that growth out another 50 years, the | world's richest man ends up at $25 trillion. Minimum wage would | grow to $30/hour. Another 50 years further, $2.5 Quadrillion, | minimum wage is now $125/hour. | | It's ludicrous. Have we been boiling frogs the past 50 years? | If the wealthy at those price levels tried to sell even 1% of | their wealth/year the system would crash. So it's clear from my | standpoint that those growth levels will simply not happen. How | does it break? Does it break with minimum wage growth? Does it | break with everything going to 0? Something else happens? | | What happens when interest rates are unable to fall further? | Are we already at the end of the ball? How much higher can it | go? | ricardobeat wrote: | The value of USD is not constant. Either you adjust the 1970 | values to today's dollar, giving you $17B for Hughes' | fortune, or you index the $100B by the minimum salary giving | you 23B vs 2.5B, a less than 10x increase. Not unreasonable | considering the global scale business can have today. | phkahler wrote: | >> What happens when interest rates are unable to fall | further? | | We are there. QE is the next thing. I think they understand | now that raising interest rate quickly will kill the housing | market like in 2007. So they need inflation while slowly | raising rates. | anm89 wrote: | Hilarious that he had to write all of this just to be able to | sneak in a justification for MMT in the last paragraph. | | This is a complete fallacy. Don't listen to reason or experts, | the world has changed! Don't worry about debt and deficits, we've | invented fiscal policy(which has been around since forever), that | old wisdom no longer applies! | | Believe it if you want. We live more or less in a society with | free markets where, at least for people with saved wealth, | individual outcomes can be highly variable by your personal | ability to understand these systems and allocate your wealth | effectively. If you think MMT is great and will have no | consequences, then allocate your money accordingly. I'm going to | assume that's not true. | | Just like everything else time will tell who was right. | rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: | > you think MMT is great and will have no consequences | | Doesn't MMT just tell us that we should focus on inflation | instead of The Deficit? | | I don't think any of its adherents believe that printing money | is consequence-free; rather, MMT states that over-printing | money _will_ eventually result in inflation, and we can choose | to respond to that inflation by either reigning in government | spending (which enables us to dial back the money printing), or | by raising taxes (thereby decreasing the money supply). | | Its prescriptions are largely the same as the current mode of | economic thought. If you spend too much, you'll have to pay for | it somehow. Arguably, it just offers a better model of the | trade-offs between taxation/spending/printing/inflation, and | suggests a different feedback mechanism to drive policymaking | decisions (inflation instead of deficit levels.) | anm89 wrote: | > Doesn't MMT just tell us that we should focus on inflation | instead of The Deficit? | | While this is roughly aligned with some of MMTs talking | points, I don't think you can reduce MMT to just this. At a | minimum these talking points have some other implications | like: | | 1) Our current congress is capable of reigning in spending | | - I strongly disagree that there is any political will power | to do this regardless of inflation | | 2) That the timeframes of tax policy decisions exist on the | same time scale as would be necessary to use tax policy | decisions to regulate inflation. | | - This is the core fallacy of MMT, even much more so than | point 1. Maybe congress can figure out how to reduce | spending, maybe if for no other reason than spite by a | congress controlled by a different party then the president. | But the idea that there is any feasible way to fine tune | taxation to manage inflation on a fast enough timescale to be | useful is beyond the pale. We get maybe one meaningful tax | plan per president and even that is a battle every single | time. so we are talking about maybe on average a meaningful | change to tax policy every 6 years. | | Yet how fast did inflation just jump? We went from a CPI of | nothing to 5+ in a few months. Who is this magical bureaucrat | who just jumps in and fine tunes the taxes to account for | this? It simply does not exist and will not exist any time | soon without a major political revolution in America. | | But the problem is the policy is justified based on the idea | that micromanaging velocity and money supply is possible but | any time I've heard an MMTer questioned on this point, they | openly admit that this part would need to be worked out when | the times comes. | | Anyway, no obligation to agree with me. But as I said, be | sure you know what you're talking about if it's your own | money on the line. | abeppu wrote: | This sounds like a bunch of boring truisms when stated this way, | but perhaps a little extra insight can be wrung out by binding | this to some more specific claims. | | There's a corner of the cognitive science literature about | iterated learning in a Bayesian framing. A question it asked was | roughly, "If we partition a dataset over a sequence of agents who | each see only a slice, and we allow each agent to communicate | something to the next agent down the line, what must be true of | the communication between those agents for them to learn the same | thing as a single agent who saw all of the data?" And roughly, | for the sequence to converge to the same posterior as a single | agent, each agent had to adopt an unbiased estimate of the | previous agent's posterior as their prior. See esp work from | Griffiths and colleagues. | | In a somewhat looser analogy, there's a family of techniques for | distributed convex optimization (like ADMM), where a group of | agents are collectively trying to optimize a function over data, | and each agent sees only a slice of that data. Note especially | that the way the data is partitioned can be entirely arbitrary, | including e.g. training an SVM classifier where some agents see | only positive data points. And for the group of agents to | collectively converge to the global optimum, each local agent | basically adds a large term to the function which penalizes | disagreement with the other agents. | | In slightly hand-wavey terms, in either case, for the agents to | reach a "correct" conclusion as a group, each needs to be able to | give potentially an arbitrarily high weight to the information | distilled from others. In the iterated learning case, the | posterior distribution received from a previous agent may have | more information than the likelihood distribution of the data | that an individual agent sees. In the optimization case, the | consensus term may contribute more to the local loss than the | data that an individual agent sees. | | So in contexts where one is actually trying to solve the _same | problem_ as a group, placing very high weight on the honest | information received from previous experts can be critical. | | But in cases when you're _not_ all working on the same problem, | it can be disastrous. | ericjang wrote: | > So in contexts where one is actually trying to solve the | _same problem_ as a group, placing very high weight on the | honest information received from previous experts can be | critical. | | Another "loose attempt to make this argument rigorous" might be | to invoke Grim Trigger [1] strategies from repeated PD games. A | very large negative weight is placed on "dishonest" behavior | across a communication channel (game). | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grim_trigger | abeppu wrote: | Of course, this is only available in certain scenarios. | | A Gen Z person at the beginning of their financial lives may | want to _discount_ the advice of baby-boomers as having come | from experience in a structurally different economy. But they | have very little mechanism to _retaliate_ against the boomers | who supported state university tuition increasing faster than | inflation for decades. | dsizzle wrote: | This seems to assume that experts' advice can only be valued (or | not) as an appeal to authority. But that would ignore that | experts can also provide _explanations_: "This won't work because | this subsystem would violate the laws of physics" e.g. -- and | that explanation might then spur someone to find an equivalent | subsystem without that flaw, or perhaps one would find a flaw in | the initial reasoning, or whatever. | | Similarly, seeing a list of past failures may inspire variations | that seek to overcome the shortcoming without having to waste | time first reproducing the same failure. One can try to learn | _why_ it failed and use that to guide future attempts. | | The advice to be wary of experts reminds me of the advice to | avoid criticism while brainstorming, the idea in common being | that criticism and negativity supposedly stifles creativity. | However, it turns out that criticism _enhances_ the brainstorming | process https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/should-we- | allo... It seems that criticism from expertise could similarly be | a boon to future advances. | clairity wrote: | we avoid negativity during brainstorming to create | psychological safety. that in turn expands the boundaries of | creativity. the process doesn't end there however, which is | what your criticism sems to assume, since we need to winnow | down the ideas generated to a feasible subset, and then further | to a pursued option. this latter part is where criticism (but | not negativity) is employed to iterate toward the chosen | option. literally no one argues the strawman that there can be | no criticism during decision-making. | | optimizing both divergence _and_ convergence processes leads to | good decision-making, not just one or the other. | dsizzle wrote: | To your point about psychological safety, that is actually | reason to have an initial phase of idea generation occur | individually before meeting in a group. Even a fully | "positive-only" group likely inhibits divergent thinking to | some degree. | | Regarding groups, research challenges your claim that | avoiding criticism during brainstorming "expands the | boundaries of creativity", and that criticism is only useful | for "winnowing down [already proposed] options." There are | multiple studies showing that criticism during discussion | _produces_ (not just selects) better ideas. | | This is a good academic review of literature covering these | topics https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/full/10.1287/orsc.2 | 020.14... | clairity wrote: | no one's arguing that we can't (or shouldn't) have any | criticism during brainstorming, only that negativity (which | can also be read as aggression) reduces psychological | safety, which in turn reduces creativity. people do pull | back (consciously and subconsciously) when the sting of | (negative) criticism looms. | | idea-focused criticism (rather than people-focused) can | hone decision-making, but we still need that psychological | safety to get the best outcomes. these things can both be | true at the same time, and we can both succeed and fail at | fostering either or both and not get the best outcome. | | just as we might criticize an overly safety-oriented | decision-making process, criticism-oriented decision-making | processes tend to degenerate into contests of aggression, | which tend to produce inferior outcomes. dogmatism in any | direction doesn't help. | Vetch wrote: | I came here to write something similar: the article does not | pay enough attention to changing environments. The dotcom | bubble ideas that are now successful do not share the same | background environment of internet availability, bandwidth, | networks of datacenters, storage, powerful portable computers, | and all around higher digital literacy and people used to | interacting with computers. If these things hadn't changed then | trying and trying again would have continued to fail with high | probability. | | As written, the statement by Ford is wrong, it is important to | keep a kind of Tabu list detailing what didn't work in the | absence of gradient information. What experts get wrong is they | fail to be sensitive to dependent parameters that are not | static (I know the article says something like this too but it | sort of glosses over it). The problem is many of these are hard | to say outside of hindsight. | | Perhaps listing the requirements before launching and listing | the state of those requirements after failure, in addition to | the idea might form a basis for what to retry. An expert might | say something like "A website for dog food and toys will never | work, we already did that 20 years ago and it failed | spectacularly", when they should be saying "A Website for dog | food did not work 20 years ago, here were our requirements and | environment, has anything changed?". But even that isn't | perfect so the process can't be deterministic. | 5faulker wrote: | From my experience, many of the problems can be solved by | spending time on extended introspection. The problem with | authorities is that they often don't have a firsthand | experience of the problems itself. | renewiltord wrote: | The thing with believing that this time is different is that your | worst case is you fail but your best case is you succeed. The | thing with believing that every time is the same is that you | guarantee mediocrity. | | When looking to the probability cone of future outcomes, some of | us accept wider cones that encompass positive and negative | outcomes. Others accept narrow cones where they constrain | outcomes. | | I personally fall into the former category and also believe that | societies that enable both kinds of people (well, all along the | spectrum of cones) will succeed. | | I also believe that the biggest factor constraining your cone | parameter is how much you have. The more you have, the less | willing you are to expand your cone. This is because human beings | are highly loss averse. I have seen this in my own life. | | The people most able to succeed are those who (intentionally or | unintentionally) have a cone with the Markov property. No matter | how far along the cone they are, the remainder of the cone looks | the same. | | But Western society is prosperous and so the natural loss | aversion leads to risk aversion. And so the balance shifts | towards preservation. This article, then, is a message to that | aspect of ours that is listening for the possibility that, | perhaps, this time really is different. | smitty1e wrote: | > Some expertise is timeless. A few behaviors always repeat. | They're often the most important things to pay attention to. | | AKA: wisdom. Seek, cherish, and protect that. Wisdom is | functional. | | 'Expertise' is often knowledge if the current/historical state of | affairs. When a dam breaks: | | > It usually means other parts of the system have evolved in a | way that allows what was once impossible to now become practical. | | The state of the hardware, the software, and the peopleware at | any moment in time is an Overton Window. | foundart wrote: | TIL Overton Window: "The Overton window is the range of | policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at | a given time. It is also known as the window of discourse." | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window A very useful | concept. | aigo wrote: | The window, and the ways political agents try to move it in | one direction or another, explains a lot of modern discourse | | It intersects with Chomsky's ideas about manufacturing | consent quite nicely too | cblconfederate wrote: | Time to dust up those old ideas. Perhaps search HN for the ideas | that everyone ridiculed | codehalo wrote: | Lol. Bitcoin | DeathArrow wrote: | >"Expertise is great, but it has a bad side effect. It tends to | create an inability to accept new ideas." | | Doesn't being an expert already contain the idea of continuous | learning? Is expertise something static? | jaybrendansmith wrote: | Now my own way to look at this, at least from a software product | perspective but perhaps it's applicable everywhere: "Everything | always gets easy if you wait long enough." It's almost a motto at | this point, because there are so many technical challenges that | prevented this or that product in the past, or more likely, made | them niche utilities that required deep expertise to maintain. | These utilities suddenly become building blocks that are simple | and commoditized, allowing larger products to be built where | before it was impossible, or at least very difficult. For anyone | starting a software business: You can enter a crowded market as | long as most of the difficult problems have almost been solved, | and if you can establish that beach head, then acquire and | sustain customers quickly enough, you can win, because everything | is perpetually getting easier. The downside of course is that | eventually your product will be commoditized into oblivion, but | that's part of the game. | lettergram wrote: | One thing I also find interesting are when people think the rules | change when they really don't. | | For instance, Green energy is the future yes, but it'll take | generations. So people assume the rules change faster than | reality. | ryukafalz wrote: | It better not take generations! We don't have that kind of | time. | abetusk wrote: | This line is what I think of whenever the cryptocurrency vitriol | comes out here: | | """ | | Pets.com was mocked, but Chewy is now a $30 billion business. | Webvan failed, but Instacart and UberEats are now thriving. eToys | was a joke, but now look at Amazon. Some of the biggest | businesses of the last 10 years are all in industries that were | the starkest examples of stupidity 20 years ago. | | """ | the_cat_kittles wrote: | just because something is profitable doesnt make it not stupid. | pfdietz wrote: | They laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the | Clown. | b3morales wrote: | Taking this as a lesson is just survivorship bias, unless _all_ | the failed 90s companies have had their business plans | replicated. | | Some ideas are ahead of their time; some are just bad. | intrasight wrote: | I did enjoy the article. I forwarded it to some colleagues. I | wasn't aware of Ford's rule. But I will say that the rule perhaps | only applied in that place and time. I've worked in the nuclear | industry, in defense, in aerospace. Not documenting failures in | those industries would be a recipe for disaster. Technology is | way too complicated today. The man who "either did not know or | paid no attention to the previous figures" isn't very likely to | help in advanced engineering disciplines. In basic research, I | think this man or woman can still make an important contribution. | nickthemagicman wrote: | This article is trying to drive an artificial wedge between | wisdom and innovation when there is none. | | Both are valuable to people. | | (regardless of age, sex, race, status, etc) | bbbhahah wrote: | "experts" - much like all the liberal fucktarded "covid experts" | FormerBandmate wrote: | Are you five | kingcharles wrote: | This quote made me feel better: "Some of the biggest businesses | of the last 10 years are all in industries that were the starkest | examples of stupidity 20 years ago." | | I'm still a little bitter from VC experiences 20 years ago. | | In 1998 my friends and I built a browser-based (Java applet) | collaborative word processor and spreadsheet called Office | Wherever (o-w.com). We shopped it to a dozen VCs and all went | ROFLMAOWTFBBQ. They all said the same - no company would want to | put their files on the (scary) Internet (the term "cloud" was | still years away). | | In 2001 my friend and I had built a full music & movie/tv | streaming service with a full-screen interface that looks just | like the modern ones, built demo hardware, had access to all the | rights etc. Everyone we pitched it to went ROFLMAOWTFBBQ. They | said people will NEVER get rid of their DVDs! They like having | things on their shelves to show off. What a stupid idea! You need | to be like Netflix and rent DVDs to people! You stupid! STUPID | STUPID STUPID! | | I wonder what folks are pitching today to VCs who are rolling on | the floor laughing when they see the "stupid" demo? | 2sk21 wrote: | I feel you. When I was working in IBM research, I developed a | web-based tool eerily close to Jupyter in 2007 but was simply | unable to get traction within the company and abandoned the | work by the end of the year. I still regret not pushing forward | with it to this day. | toast0 wrote: | There was a time that Google had good sucess by launching new | products that Yahoo had launched 5 years earlier and cancelled | due to lack of interest. | | Nobody wants to be a patent troll, but being too early and | filing patents can set you up for late revenue. Even if it's | just watching for patent trolls and licensing your patents to | the victims to double troll. | tjr225 wrote: | I can't wait to see what the experts at hacker news have to say | about this! | zackmorris wrote: | It's weird reading this as someone who identifies strongly as Gen | X, witnessing how we can't seem to address existential threats | like global climate change until the Boomers retire. Or a | thousand other problems. | | I've spent the last 20+ years under a near-constant form of | gaslighting where everybody told me my ideas would never work. | Having to watch time and again as a different version of me wins | the internet lottery. | | Dunno about all of you, but I'm kinda over it. | | My dad (a Boomer and self-proclaimed radical in the 1960/70s | environmental spirit) reminded my just yesterday though that not | all Boomers are alike, and that stereotypes hurt. I wish we had a | different term for people who self-ossify, glorify ignorance, and | take it upon themselves to dictate to others why they're wrong. | I'm thinking of guys like Mitch McConnell and Milton Friedman, so | sure in their certitude that it's inconceivable to them that | their theology could actively harm the modern world. How do we | resist such glacial forms of resignation? | pfdietz wrote: | Milton Friedman was a supporter of taxes on pollutants. He | recognized that negative externalities are a case where | government intervention is needed, and thought Pigovian taxes | were the best way for government to do that. Were he alive | today he'd be advocating carbon taxes. | zackmorris wrote: | Interesting, I didn't know that. Most of the clips I see of | him online show him berating young people who aren't wrong | IMHO. | | A bit serendipitous, but his name popped up just now when I | was searching for an article about regulation to make | companies responsible for their own externalities: | | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-29/cop26-. | .. | | _Big investors really do think of themselves as universal | investors | | The typical attitude is: "If we're a big investor, we're | universal investors. We can't say we're going to divest | fossil fuels companies; we have to stay invested." Other | companies in the portfolio will continue to use carbon. At | the same time, a universal investor needs to look after the | wellbeing of its clients. That means making sure they have a | healthy climate to breathe when they retire, and not just | that they have an adequate cash flow. | | Put differently, the report says they believe that they "own" | the negative externalities caused by the companies in their | portfolio "due to the sheer depth and breadth of their | holdings in all asset classes and regions." As far as they | are concerned: "Such 'paper' holdings do not negate their | fiduciary responsibility to wider society." This is a long | way from the "shareholder value" philosophy associated with | Milton Friedman that held sway for decades._ | | Right now I put the responsibility for environmental collapse | squarely on the shoulders of corporations, their shareholders | and fundamentally consumers who (due to tragedy of the | commons) frankly don't know how to begin to be sustainable | when it takes everything they got to make it in today's | world. | | To say that another way, I don't think that Friedman's views | are fundamentally incorrect, I just think that they put | attention in the wrong places. For example, capitalism is | just economic evolution. It doesn't need to be defended as | some alternative to social democracy. Capitalism isn't going | anywhere, but it can be constrained by human will so that it | doesn't make us slaves to it, toiling in the workaday world | every day until we die as the earth burns around us. | gedy wrote: | Unfortunately , as a fellow Gen X, "Boomer" is turning into a | term for "older than me and a little more successful/further | along in life". Hate that some younger people are calling me a | Boomer, when we didn't have pensions _or_ 401ks, our families | were gutted with parents divorcing, etc. | renlo wrote: | This reminds me of the linotype machine's [0] invention. Many had | tried to invent a similar machine and failed, the inventor went | into it without knowing about the other failed attempts and used | a completely different and novel technique than other attempts | and managed to make it work. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linotype_machine | dougabug wrote: | This article is uncannily apropos for HN. | | The spectrum of opinions towards emerging technologies is so | starkly colored by the eras during which practitioners did their | primary work. | | It reminds me of the Heinlein quote from "A Door into Summer", | "When railroading time comes you can railroad--but not before." | wpietri wrote: | For sure. The older I get, the more I try to watch out for this | effect. | | It's a pain, but one of the nice parts is that it drives you to | look for deeper principles. E.g., when my dad started coding, | machine time was really expensive as was storage space, so | everybody optimized for those things. Hello, Y2K! Now the | opposite is true: developer time has gotten more expensive, and | computation is cheap. In one sense, that invalidates a lot of | old expertise. But on the other, optimization is still usually | important, we're just optimizing for different things. A little | reframing of habits and you can end up with a more flexible and | subtle model. | dougabug wrote: | We are in violent agreement! | | Optimization never grows old, but it's the more general form | of optimization of which you speak, rather than hyper- | specific instances of optimization which can overfit to | specific eras. | 2sk21 wrote: | I was thinking about this in the context of large transformer | based language models like GPT-3. Based on my years of | experience in the field, I keep thinking that this is a dead- | end on the path to full AI but I have to force myself to keep | an open mind and to not to fall into that trap. | | Incidentally, Morgan Housel, the author of this essay is a very | good financial writer - worth reading his other essays too. | dougabug wrote: | Perhaps this was a cherry picked example on the part of the | authors, but the network generating relevant novel images | conditioned upon the text prompt "an illustration of a baby | daikon radish in a tutu walking a dog" ... made me take a | (not entirely permanent) break from on ripping on GPT-3. | | https://openai.com/blog/dall-e/ | squiffsquiff wrote: | Tldr: "society advances one funeral at a time" | howmayiannoyyou wrote: | Tl;dr - Old experts cannot distinguish between | historical/economic cycles vs. Paradigm shifts that break those | cycles. | | Nice theory, but adjust your scale over a thousand years and | innovation has yet to usurp megacycles of boom/bust, war/peace or | the rise/fall of "empires". | | We may be better informed than we were in the 1700's, but we are | no less partisan in our views, speculative in our ventures, nor | vulnerable to geopolitical storms. | | Using one of Housel's examples - high PE equity ratios are | indicative of excess liquidity in the system chasing speculative | yield; a subset of which excess liquidity is capital fleeing | China for the West (or) A federal reserve & US Treasury committed | to ensuring Boomer retirement assets are not wiped out in a | market reversion to a historical mean. High PE equity ratios are | not indicative of any underlying fundamentals that justify the | majority of these prices. | | Yes, Tesla _may_ be an exception _if_ Musk's innovation | convergence strategy is monetized as its investors hope. But for | every Tesla there is a Nikola, and for every Moderna a Theranos. | | What do old experts (old farts like me) know that Housel may not? | We've lived through about 8 recessions, three economic crisis, | one bout of epic inflation, and we've watched change, ignorance | and greed greatly disrupt or destroy corporate behemoths like | Lucent, Enron, GM, GE, etc. | | We know what is coming. We just can't tell you precisely when. | | Housel's temporal sense appears to be stunted. And, yes, he does | (as he stated) sound arrogant. | GDC7 wrote: | > Yes, Tesla _may_ be an exception | | Tesla is not the exception, matter of fact it's the poster | child of a world where the stock market going up becomes the | goal pf both the elected and non-elected branches of the | government and not an agnostic measurement tool to check how | American public companies are faring. | paulpauper wrote: | My heuristic is to extend current trends outwards. Stock prices | will keep going higher, like it or not, even though the media for | over a decade has been predicting a bear market. Valuations | matter, but market dominance, growth, and network effects matter | more. Large tech companies are excelling on all these fronts. | Microsoft has been dominant and growing for 40 years and its | share price reflects that. Google and Amazon have been doing it | for the past 20, and Facebook for the past 10. | publicdenial wrote: | We should execute every last politician that ordered "lockdowns", | and masking and forced vaxxing. | | They all need to be executed. Every last one of them. | the_cat_kittles wrote: | this author is revealing something embarassing about themselves, | namely that they think of expertise in almost exclusively | financial terms. knowing how to get rich is not really the same | thing as expertise to me. | publicdenial wrote: | Is Fauci still considered an expert since he likes to rip vocal | cords out of puppies and torture them to death? Just asking... | Tarucho wrote: | Everything is tied to the present situation. My past failures | could be someone else tomorrow successes. | | But what about human nature knowledge? | ketzo wrote: | At first I was a little wary of this, because it had the sort of | smooth, business-school-y tone that makes you worry someone's | trying to sell you something. | | But I after reading I thought this was genuinely insightful. | Particularly politically. | | I think it helps give me some perspective to know that different | smart, well-intentioned people have believed wholeheartedly in | _entirely contradictory_ positions in their lifetimes. | DoreenMichele wrote: | I enjoyed this so much. The stories about Ford were terrific. | | A lot of "wisdom" is contextual and gets mistaken for universal. | We learn "X works" and, having been burned by everything else we | tried, jealously guard the value of X as very special and | precious. | | Scars obtained in the process of obtaining expertise are likely | an underrecognized factor in experts becoming ossified in their | opinions. They learned that everything else bites and this | doesn't. They don't want to get bit again. | | Then conditions change and now nothing is guaranteed to work like | it did before. It likely seems unfair to find their hard won | wisdom is now irrelevant baggage. | visarga wrote: | Experts have done a lot of exploration and gained much | experience, but just having abilities is nothing by itself. You | need to exploit your abilities as well, employ them for good | gain, and that takes time from exploration. Maybe you don't | want to explore anymore because it's so good where you are at. | This happened to Microsoft as well. | publicdenial wrote: | Is Barbara Ferrer an "expert" even though she has no medical | degree? | | Doesn't she know the facts and science that masking spreads | germs? | paulpauper wrote: | Whether it's finance, geo politics, economics or even Covid, I | have found that experts tend to have terrible track records. The | same people today who are predicting Bitcoin will go to 250k in | four years, made that very prediction four years ago. These | people are being paid large sums of money to produce worse | insights and worse performance that even random bloggers or | random posters on r/wallstreetbets. It's hard to take these | people seriously no matter how many degrees they have or how rich | they are. It's obvious that prestige does not select for | competence anymore. | antod wrote: | To me that kind of observation seems subject to all kinds of | biases. | | You seem to be equating "prestige" in a topic with being an | expert in a topic - the two are not necessarily related. | | eg the more outrageous or unusual the claim from an "expert" | (hence the less likely to be right), the more memorable that | claim will be, or the more likely it will get attention. And | the more someone is a "nobody", the more likely that their | numerous eventually wrong claims will be dismissed or forgotten | about compared to the memorable times some random was correct | by accident. | | Likewise I find the more certain someone is of something that | is still uncertain, the more likely they will be to be wrong. | The alternative of wishy washy consensus full of qualifications | doesn't report well if at all, and tends to have minor errors | picked apart and amplified even while broadly correct overall. | paulpauper wrote: | >n. And the more someone is a "nobody", the more likely that | their numerous eventually wrong claims will be dismissed or | forgotten about compared to the memorable times some random | was correct by accident. | | I think this applies more to some subjects than others. I | think math and physics experts have a much greater claim to | epistemological certainty than political or finance experts. | The vast majority of political experts were wrong both about | trump getting nomination, wrong about him winning ,and then | were wrong about the economy doing well under Trump. I think | nobodies in finance and politics can do as well, if not | better ,than experts. | socmovesus wrote: | Everyone is seeing this all wrong. | | Our problem is only with experts who linearly regress away other | real people! | | A politically empowered minority see the masses a rounding error. | | Experts in economics tell us it's OK to watch our family members | die of preventable disease for profits sake. | | That doesn't mean we don't need Fauci's and Grace Hopper's. | | We need experts in qualifying physical reality not constraining | criteria for success. Experts accept ideas are not sacrosanct. | publicdenial wrote: | Is London Breed an expert in sucking dick? | | Is Kamala Harris an expert in getting rugburns on her knees? | dqpb wrote: | If you're really an expert, you should be the vanguard, not the | old guard. | publicdenial wrote: | Is Joe Biden an expert in fucking little kids including his | daughter Ashley in the shower (her words)? | leobg wrote: | Great article. Reminds me of Nietzsche's "On The Use And Abuse Of | History". | coffeefirst wrote: | Something I've noticed in the pandemic: there's a pretty big gap | between what people remember "the experts" saying vs what, if you | listened to one or two qualified professionals and kept them | straight, actually said. | | Individual experts--the good ones at least--seem to hold up | pretty well even if they didn't see everything coming. | | It's the widespread sampling of chyrons and faces that inevitably | says everything all of the time and winds up looking incompetent. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | From the book of Proverbs (in the Bible): "The wise man gets a | lot of advice" (paraphrased). | | One chapter later: "The fool listens to most of it" (also | paraphrased). | | If you don't have the time to sort it all out, don't listen to | all the viewpoints. Society, collectively, is insane - it | believes so many contradictory things that could not all | possibly be true. You can't listen to society or "they say" as | a guide. You'll get nonsense. | | But part of this is on the news, especially television and | internet news. They need a hot take for this hour to draw | eyeballs. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be new | and different. But if you're trying to follow it to learn what | to do to protect yourself in the pandemic, it's a hopelessly | self-contradictory jumble. People wind up saying "They lied to | us! They're still lying to us!" The problem is that "they" - | the "they" that the media present to us - is too big a set. | | Now, individual experts still can be mistaken, give bad advice, | or even lie. But no expert is as confused as the union of all | the experts. | ericjang wrote: | You don't believe in the "wisdom of the crowds" ? | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Here is a set of people. On a given subject, the _median_ | position is likely to be at least reasonable. That 's the | "wisdom of the crowds". | | Here is a set of experts. Within the area of their | expertise, the median position is probably pretty close to | right. The _intersection_ of their views are almost | certainly right (though it may be the empty set). | | But what you can't do is take the _union_ of the views of a | set of people, and expect anything except a bizarre jumble | of self-contradiction. And that 's what the media gives us. | (In fact, the media gives us the union, with extra emphasis | added to the outliers, because those are "more interesting" | and therefore attract more eyeballs.) | | Wisdom of the crowds? Maybe. Wisdom of the media coverage | of the crowds? No way. | musingsole wrote: | Union vs. intersection vs. outlier weighting is a | beautiful way to put this. | [deleted] | paulpauper wrote: | This is why eyewitness testimony can be unreliable . People are | sure someone said or believed something, or that there is a | consensus about something, but this may not be true. Social | media can make this worse, particularly by forming false | consensuses about issues in which no such consensus may exist. | gilleain wrote: | Yes it seems like a combination of magnifying and muddling | information. | | Say, for example, a cancer researcher makes a statement like | "Red wine contains compounds that might protect from some | cancers" - not very interesting as news. So it gets magnified | to "Red wine CURES cancer". | | Next, another expert says "excessive use of alcohol can | increases the risk of certain cancers". Of course the news | converts this to "Alcohol causes cancer". | | Finally, combine these two messages and people quite | understanderbly conclude that cancer experts have no idea if | alcohol causes or cures cancer. | skybrian wrote: | There is that, but it also seems to be true that a lot of | scientific studies are done badly. A lesson of the pandemic | seems to be that when doing a meta-analysis you need to make | sure to avoid the low-quality and fraudulent studies. | nostrademons wrote: | Some of this is a conflation of who the experts are, as well as | hindsight bias on that question. If you look at say Fauci or | Trevor Bedford's predictions, sure, they were pretty accurate | (with some confusion in the middle of the pandemic when | everything was confused). But if you take Rand Paul as your | "expert" (also a medical doctor, but in a different specialty), | you would've had a very different sense of what "the experts" | were saying. And in the moment, you don't have the benefit of | hindsight to judge the credibility of expert predictions, only | their credentials. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-20 23:00 UTC)