|
|
|
|
|
by ci5er
3094 days ago
|
|
> There are many in which half of usually smart people can't simply understand what's the others' position about. > The pattern is that one side considers current practice tedious, steep learning curve for professionals only, while the other side finds it "good enough". If it's good enough for you, you'll never invent something easier and faster to understand. This is a bit baffling to me -- the phenomena to which you refer. And it seems to be more general than the pattern you outline. It appears to have something to do with both pre-suppositions and different orderings of personal values [0]. But I'm not sure. Do you think it is possible to generalize the structure of the process via which reasonably educated and smart people can be presented with the same facts and come to different conclusions -- that they will defend against each other in pretty feisty debates? [0] By this I mean, for example, that some people might put individual freedom higher than equality across large populations and vice-versa. |
|
In this case, very smart people is unable to figure out how does an average user thinks.
I do believe that there's something about mindset. Some people lives under the delusion that things work the way they work because that's the way they should work. Actually there are a lot of randomness in the way things work, specially in areas where new territories are being unconvered all the time.