Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by WesolyKubeczek 1720 days ago
In my case, it just reaffirms the notion that being a smart fool is not really an oxymoron, and that people at large are fools, myself included.

We all sometimes have a tendency to talk about the things we know jack about while posing as experts because we read an article in the Guardian about it once, or an abstract from a paper. Some more than others.

In the world of show business and television, I’ve seen celebrities — singers, stand up comedians, those kinds of people — often being asked about their stance on complicated political issues or life advice as such — and they spoke bullshit with a mild air of authority instead of running away, which a sensible person should have done. The thing, though, is, that the fact they are celebrities means there are crowds of fans who will listen to whatever they say as if it was God’s own truth.

Hey, you can treat what I just wrote as uninformed bullshit, likely you even have reasons to, like data to contradict my statements. It’s ok. I’m likely a fool.

3 comments

> and they spoke bullshit with a mild air of authority instead of running away, which a sensible person should have done.

I think often they're asked because they've expressed interest in a topic or cause, and they realize that any benefit their name and the exposure they have at the moment is wasted if they ignore questions about it.

That they misstep is probably no different than any fledgling PR person the first day on the job, and sometimes I don't doubt it's media baiting them with questions to expose their lack of knowledge of some areas of the topic, as it makes for good coverage.

A lot of the times I give celebrities a lot of leeway in their knowledge, because most the time it's obvious that they just want to help because they feel fortunate for their current situation and want to give back. Sometimes that seems to be misapplied because of their lack of deep understanding on the topic, but at least their hearts seem to be in a good place.

I’ve been thinking about those concrete examples I remember which have driven me to the conclusion I stand by now, and it was always more like “what’s your take on this thing that’s resonating in the news/happening where you live”, and they feel compelled to have an opinion and sound smart and deep on top.

It’s likely worse with celebrities who are generally smart and well-read on a wide range of subjects, who think that because they think they know a thing or two, that they should bestow their pearls of knowledge upon their audience.

The reality, though, is that they are in fact an illustration of the popular understanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect, because they don’t know how much they don’t know, sometimes even after a demonstration of the contrary.

I know about at least one such person who gave very thoughtful interviews on politics and blogged opinions and how he knew how to put things right, ran for a seat in the parliament twice, actually got elected both times, and failed miserably at his job both times, ending his mandate prematurely.

Well, I'm not going to act like some people don't interpret their success as a mandate of how exceptional they are overall, and I'm sure being somewhat more intelligent than average in an industry known for sycophants probably leads to some unhealthy mental self image problems. These people definitely seem to exist. I think we should be careful to not let our admiration and displeasure of each set color our interpretations of the other though, and keep in mind some people are just trying to help where they can.

> the popular understanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect

You had me (my upvote) at hello (the acknowledgement of the popular misunderstanding). ;)

I see the same in the news a lot. When you are deep in an industry you see all the important errors they make reporting on what happened often missing the point entirely while making something else up. At any reasonable niche the amount of people who likely can have a quality opinion on something is really quite small and that includes alas the journalists who didn't grasp the details when they interviewed the experts.

We are all fools on many topics, most topics. One of my mentors in the past used to say there was no substitute for experience in an area. If you were joining a project and the members had a head start you should listen and learn because their experience was way ahead of your opinions on how it could be done.

I develop doubts when it comes to journalism, especially when it is presented from a point of authority and sold as truth. I don't with individuals, because all of us a prone to use expertise in field A to judge field B. Doing so constantly, and ignoring people knowing more than you is what makes you a fool.
Should this affect our trust in news sources/online media (blogs, op-eds, articles)? If so, where do we draw the line between content worth reading and meaningless opinions?
> We all sometimes have a tendency to talk about the things we know jack about

Why not participate in the norm of stating the source of your claims. It's easy enough to start a sentence with "I read in the Guardian" or "If I remember correctly" or "I heard from a professor once".

It even helps just to share your credence in your claim, e.g. "I suspect this is true", or "I'm pretty sure this is how something works".