In the same way that you should take a software engineer's take on why a a SQL query is slow. They're probably the most knowledgeable person in the room but that doesn't always mean that they're right.
"A software engineer's take on why an SQL query is slow." isn't the correct analogy, IMO. First, this isn't a banker, it's a bank. A banking crisis isn't the equivalent of a script either.
Should you trust meta about monopolism in the social media space, data ownership, child safety, the effects of new media on professional journalism, etc. etc. Big political questions intertwined with his companies' interests.
In any case, both in the hypothetical fb case and the real chase case: (1) you should listen, because they're in a position to have knowledge and insight. (2) You should also be extremely skeptical, and assume that they are making statements in pursuit of their interests.
That said, the content of this particular article is quite worth listening to. It's not really about the what. It's about the why.
I wonder how many HN conversations would be cut short if we simply accepted that analogies are imperfect yet useful. They provide a very limited amount of insight into any topic—so yes, let’s use them, and let’s stop arguing about whether an analogy is the “right analogy”. A analogy will have some element of truth that transfers from one situation to another, and in a good analogy, it will be easy for readers to discover that element of truth.
You’ll find ways in which the analogy is “wrong”, but that’s just noise.
Analogies are like children. If its your own they're a brilliant, cute, funny, unique individual. If they're other people's they're loud, annoying, stinky little pests and oh god they're swarming you.
IDK... I do see you point, but I'd like to think both I and the commenter I responded to were using analogies in an ok way.
Analogies are a pretty good rhetorical device, IMO because we kind of think in abstract analogies anyway. We could have both made our points without analogy, but I don't think much content is lost.
His point is that Bankers are the professionals. This is true. I "complicated" the analogy/comment to highlight the tension between "bankers are knowledgeable professionals" and "bankers are an interested party."
In any case, I feel that analogies are ok. The problem with my comment might have been an overly combative or nitpicky tone, especially given that we probably agree of most of it.
It's more like a manager's take on whether they need more headcount or an engineer's opinion on how long a project is going to take. They are the most informed person in the room - however, they also have an incentive to present a certain story.
Most software engineers are absolutely garbage at SQL though. Their expertise often ends at CRUD queries, if they can even achieve that without their precious ORMs.
Should you trust meta about monopolism in the social media space, data ownership, child safety, the effects of new media on professional journalism, etc. etc. Big political questions intertwined with his companies' interests.
In any case, both in the hypothetical fb case and the real chase case: (1) you should listen, because they're in a position to have knowledge and insight. (2) You should also be extremely skeptical, and assume that they are making statements in pursuit of their interests.
That said, the content of this particular article is quite worth listening to. It's not really about the what. It's about the why.