You are Probably Mis-Diagnosing People as Stupid(jasoncrawford.org)
jasoncrawford.org
You are Probably Mis-Diagnosing People as Stupid
http://jasoncrawford.org/2010/04/how-to-work-with-stupid-people/
17 comments
One of my best friends in grad school was a creationist. We discussed the subject exactly once. He realized that I knew rather more about the debate than he did, I knew there was no percentage in pushing it, and we both knew that neither person was going to change their opinions soon. So we found other things to talk about.
I got him through his topology qual so he could get a masters. (He went on to get a PhD in math.) He introduced me to Linux. On the whole I think I got the better long-term bargain.
I got him through his topology qual so he could get a masters. (He went on to get a PhD in math.) He introduced me to Linux. On the whole I think I got the better long-term bargain.
Seems reasonable.
One interesting question you can ask each other is "What would it take to change your mind?". In a certain sense--which may remind you of Karl Popper, the weaker the conditions you can offer on which you'd change your mind, the stronger your standpoint is.
Of course asking this question can be quite uncomfortable for yourself. For example, I like to think of atheism as the reasonable person's natural point of view. But I could not offer good conditions that would make me change my mind. Because I suspect I'd rather doubt my sanity than accept sensations that would be incompatible with no-gods.
One interesting question you can ask each other is "What would it take to change your mind?". In a certain sense--which may remind you of Karl Popper, the weaker the conditions you can offer on which you'd change your mind, the stronger your standpoint is.
Of course asking this question can be quite uncomfortable for yourself. For example, I like to think of atheism as the reasonable person's natural point of view. But I could not offer good conditions that would make me change my mind. Because I suspect I'd rather doubt my sanity than accept sensations that would be incompatible with no-gods.
> His core belief was in the concrete word for word truth in the bible. Intelligence didn't really play into it.
Intelligence plays a key role in that, that core belief didn't get there by accident and an intelligent mind would not allow such a stunningly ignorant belief like that to take hold. You can't believe the earth is a few thousand years old and also claim to be intelligent. You might be intelligent about other things but in this you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not know how wrong that is.
A truly intelligent mind re-examines any belief that is called into question with reasonable evidence. Sticking to your beliefs against all evidence to the contrary is stupid, and it makes you stupid.
Intelligence plays a key role in that, that core belief didn't get there by accident and an intelligent mind would not allow such a stunningly ignorant belief like that to take hold. You can't believe the earth is a few thousand years old and also claim to be intelligent. You might be intelligent about other things but in this you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not know how wrong that is.
A truly intelligent mind re-examines any belief that is called into question with reasonable evidence. Sticking to your beliefs against all evidence to the contrary is stupid, and it makes you stupid.
> an intelligent mind would not allow such a stunningly ignorant belief...
I'm not sure about that. Maybe a scientific (ie. exploratory) mind would do that. However you're assuming that ignorance is any axioms except science axioms (which at their time are facts that will time they may change, ie. the more recent Global Warming). Same applies to the evidence reexamining.
An analogy: if you know by experience (a lot of trial-error) that if you touch the red button, you will seriously hurt yourself, would you push it again to re-examine your previous knowledge? I think the same dogma applies to (blind) beliefs if you were not allowed to explore in the "exploratory age".
EDIT: Trial-error of beliefs cannot be based on factual experience, since they can't exist (eg. is there a God? Does the Heaven exist?).
I'm not sure about that. Maybe a scientific (ie. exploratory) mind would do that. However you're assuming that ignorance is any axioms except science axioms (which at their time are facts that will time they may change, ie. the more recent Global Warming). Same applies to the evidence reexamining.
An analogy: if you know by experience (a lot of trial-error) that if you touch the red button, you will seriously hurt yourself, would you push it again to re-examine your previous knowledge? I think the same dogma applies to (blind) beliefs if you were not allowed to explore in the "exploratory age".
EDIT: Trial-error of beliefs cannot be based on factual experience, since they can't exist (eg. is there a God? Does the Heaven exist?).
> Trial-error of beliefs cannot be based on factual experience, since they can't exist (eg. is there a God? Does the Heaven exist?).
Yes, and it is foolish to hold beliefs that cannot be tested or validated in some way. Believing in that for which there is not or cannot be evidence is ignorant.
Yes, and it is foolish to hold beliefs that cannot be tested or validated in some way. Believing in that for which there is not or cannot be evidence is ignorant.
You raise a good point re: assumptions -- I think the hidden axiom is "The bible is the literal word of God. Therefore, if there's a contradiction then my idea of a perfect God is flawed, and probably doesn't exist".
Maybe I'm naive, but I cannot fathom how someone could -really- believe the world was N thousand years old (when there are trees 5000 years old!), and not as an elaborate way to defend their faith.
In this context I think "believe" means "hope" -- "I hope the world is 6000 years old, because I need to reinforce my axiom of literal biblical truth" vs. "I believe the world is 6000 years old, and would bet money the radioactive dating on this piece of rock will say so (or that this tree will have no more than 6000 rings)."
The separate question is what you call someone who easily believes / defends ideas which are easily disproven -- if not stupid, then gullible? Naive?
Maybe I'm naive, but I cannot fathom how someone could -really- believe the world was N thousand years old (when there are trees 5000 years old!), and not as an elaborate way to defend their faith.
In this context I think "believe" means "hope" -- "I hope the world is 6000 years old, because I need to reinforce my axiom of literal biblical truth" vs. "I believe the world is 6000 years old, and would bet money the radioactive dating on this piece of rock will say so (or that this tree will have no more than 6000 rings)."
The separate question is what you call someone who easily believes / defends ideas which are easily disproven -- if not stupid, then gullible? Naive?
These ideas aren't easily disproven.
The evidence you are giving (basically carbon dating) is widely disbelieved by creationists: http://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+dating+false
Basically they find themselves enough problems with the theory of carbon dating that it lets them keep an internally consistent model (eg, "yes, I am a rational person, but all those scientist using carbon dating didn't take into account the effect changes in the earths magnetic field have on Carbon 14 production" http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-dispro...)
Yes, you can disprove this too. But soon you are requiring such a level of knowledge that you and the other person are just quoting random sources from the Internet.
Sure, your sources may be real peer-reviewed journals and theirs may be blogs, but then you'll have to prove your sources are better than theirs (which isn't easy, given the amount of valid criticism peer-reviewed journals get). Soon the argument will come down to authority on the internet you'll end up arguing that Perelman's (Fields medal winning) non-peer reviewed solution to the Poincaré conjecture is okay, but other crazy theories in the same pre-print archive are not okay because umm.. they just aren't.
I agree they are gullible. But I don't think proving it is as easy as you may think.
The evidence you are giving (basically carbon dating) is widely disbelieved by creationists: http://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+dating+false
Basically they find themselves enough problems with the theory of carbon dating that it lets them keep an internally consistent model (eg, "yes, I am a rational person, but all those scientist using carbon dating didn't take into account the effect changes in the earths magnetic field have on Carbon 14 production" http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-dispro...)
Yes, you can disprove this too. But soon you are requiring such a level of knowledge that you and the other person are just quoting random sources from the Internet.
Sure, your sources may be real peer-reviewed journals and theirs may be blogs, but then you'll have to prove your sources are better than theirs (which isn't easy, given the amount of valid criticism peer-reviewed journals get). Soon the argument will come down to authority on the internet you'll end up arguing that Perelman's (Fields medal winning) non-peer reviewed solution to the Poincaré conjecture is okay, but other crazy theories in the same pre-print archive are not okay because umm.. they just aren't.
I agree they are gullible. But I don't think proving it is as easy as you may think.
>Sure, your sources may be real peer-reviewed journals and theirs may be blogs
Or they might just start a peer-reviewed journal to point at. This one's been around for a while. http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation There's even a pretty sophisticated cosmological model that tries to fix some of the timescale issues. http://www.icr.org/article/seven-years-starlight-time/ This kind of thing makes the argument even harder.
Or they might just start a peer-reviewed journal to point at. This one's been around for a while. http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation There's even a pretty sophisticated cosmological model that tries to fix some of the timescale issues. http://www.icr.org/article/seven-years-starlight-time/ This kind of thing makes the argument even harder.
I had a physics teacher who liked to discuss with crackpots (not too many hardcore Christians in Germany). He agreed with what your saying: Disproving their models is hard, and those guys aren't stupid.
As an exercise: Try to convince me that the Earth isn't flat.
As an exercise: Try to convince me that the Earth isn't flat.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Remember when that article about Facebook had 100 comments along the lines of "what have you done with the old Facebook login page? I hate this one!"?
We are probably not misdiagnosing them as stupid.
We are probably not misdiagnosing them as stupid.
They are computer illiterate (or internet illiterate to be more precise), but not stupid.
Not just Internet-illiterate — incapable of logic or rudimentary problem solving. I've been in situations where I was much less at home than these people were, but because I was willing to use my brain I was not as helpless.
That doesn't explain it. Suppose you or I act stupidly in 1% of those situations, and suppose only 1% of the people who came to fakebook (pardon the pun) couldn't find the login and complained. Than we could very well be all equally stupid.
Or just plain illiterate.
How did you come to that conclusion?
There are a lot of things I don't know and some things I am very new to. If I were to sit down with Brian cox and argue about the nuances of quantum physics I will come off as someone who is Quantum Physics illiterate, not stupid.
To some people the internet is new, mysterious and complicated like quantum physics, simply because they are not very familiar with it or interested in the technical aspects of the internet doesn't make them stupid.
There are a lot of things I don't know and some things I am very new to. If I were to sit down with Brian cox and argue about the nuances of quantum physics I will come off as someone who is Quantum Physics illiterate, not stupid.
To some people the internet is new, mysterious and complicated like quantum physics, simply because they are not very familiar with it or interested in the technical aspects of the internet doesn't make them stupid.
How can you confuse a newspaper article with a login form if you have any ability to read and understand what you read? Yeah, the word facebook is used, and the facebook logo is on the page. But if you RTFA...
Anyway, acting stupid is as bad as being stupid. Worse, even.
Anyway, acting stupid is as bad as being stupid. Worse, even.
I don't understand this. Why is it so hard to give someone the benefit of the doubt?
The whole piece boils down to that. And it's very useful advice for arrogant computer dweebs. You can't just write people off like that successfully.
And you certainly can't do it because 100 out of N misdirected users of one of the most popular sites on the internet don't have the correct mental model for what's going on or complete confidence in that model.
The whole piece boils down to that. And it's very useful advice for arrogant computer dweebs. You can't just write people off like that successfully.
And you certainly can't do it because 100 out of N misdirected users of one of the most popular sites on the internet don't have the correct mental model for what's going on or complete confidence in that model.
"100 out of N misdirected users"
Good point....I agree with the idea that whoever got confused by that article is stupid (I mean, if you can't figure out you are reading an article, then is the state of stupid even possible), but it was a fairly small sample of people, considering how many people log in to facebook per minute.
But then, I guess we're back to the question of why they navigate to facebook via google....sigh.
But then, I guess we're back to the question of why they navigate to facebook via google....sigh.
I used to be arrogant like that (still to some extend) and I absolutely understand where you are coming from. Seeing other people screwing up on things that seems extremely obvious and no-brainer can be annoying and can be confused as being stupid.
Actually the facebook login case was one of people using computers using a limited skillset(ie using search bar for everything), not necessarily being stupid. Well, that plus being impatient.
I wanted to write a longer reply, but this article covers it pretty well: http://www.osnews.com/story/22884/The_Facebook_Login_Thing_B...
On a personal note: my mother in law used to only use browsers history (down arrow) to access her sites. Since she only uses about 10 sites this worked very well for her. One day, she was very upset, when my browsing on her computer "broke" her computer. She is not stupid, and once I showed her how to set up shortcuts on toolbar, her computer was "fixed".
I wanted to write a longer reply, but this article covers it pretty well: http://www.osnews.com/story/22884/The_Facebook_Login_Thing_B...
On a personal note: my mother in law used to only use browsers history (down arrow) to access her sites. Since she only uses about 10 sites this worked very well for her. One day, she was very upset, when my browsing on her computer "broke" her computer. She is not stupid, and once I showed her how to set up shortcuts on toolbar, her computer was "fixed".
He may simple be relying on statistics. Even in Western Europe, an estimated 10% of people is functionally illiterate.
I think people reading slowly has a lot to do with it; people just jump onto the first relevant-looking item they see. They saw the Facebook button and didn't read the stuff that was obviously a written article.
Something else I often see, which I think has the same cause: people blindly clicking on the first item returned by a search, when the second or third result is clearly what they're looking for.
Something else I often see, which I think has the same cause: people blindly clicking on the first item returned by a search, when the second or third result is clearly what they're looking for.
All of these points assume that someone who is "stupid" is someone who disagrees with your point of view. I find that is very rarely an issue in my day to day job. The real question I'd like to know the answer to is how do you deal with people who require more help and guidance than others? How do you help others to think for themselves and come up with great solutions to problems by themselves?
Great question, and something I'm still learning. I touched on some points I know in the article. E.g., if you have data or lessons-learned that they don't, share that information.
Probably a whole separate post in helping others see your point of view via questions rather than statements, so they learn your method and not just your conclusions.
Probably a whole separate post in helping others see your point of view via questions rather than statements, so they learn your method and not just your conclusions.
Agreed. I'm also not sure that we're all talking about the same kinds of experiences here. To me, there's a difference between having a spirited difference of opinion with a colleague and having to walk through a basic set of instructions (e.g. "The red shirts go in the red basket") for the forty-seventh time with an employee.
Easy rule-of-thumb: if you think somebody is stupid, ask "Help me to understand"
I've found that once you understand, very, very rarely do you think they are stupid any more.
I've found that once you understand, very, very rarely do you think they are stupid any more.
I couldn't agree with you more.
On a personal note, I must admit that the level of arrogance seen in IT is sometimes quite overwhelming. Just because someone can use a computer does not automatically make them smart; other people have other skills, amazing! ;)
On a personal note, I must admit that the level of arrogance seen in IT is sometimes quite overwhelming. Just because someone can use a computer does not automatically make them smart; other people have other skills, amazing! ;)
"She's not troubled, she's a dancer"
- Sir. Ken Robinson on a child whose parents feared she might be learning-disabled, thus demonstrating that different types of intelligence exist. Look up the speech on TED Talks; it is incredible.
I know the video you're referring to. It is really cool, and opens up the idea that intellectual intelligence is only 1 type of intelligence.
From my personal life, my wife couldn't care less about computers and probably would never watch a TED video, but her "people intelligence" is very high -- she can relate to many different kinds of people and wherever she goes she makes good friends and people around her hold her in high esteem.
Her dad is something of a bookworm who knows a little bit about everything and quite a bit about a couple of things. If he were younger (he's in his 70's) he'd probably get his news from HN. I've often wondered if his "intellectual intelligence" was transferred to her but in a different form... like she used it in a different way, in interacting with and reading people, instead of books.
From my personal life, my wife couldn't care less about computers and probably would never watch a TED video, but her "people intelligence" is very high -- she can relate to many different kinds of people and wherever she goes she makes good friends and people around her hold her in high esteem.
Her dad is something of a bookworm who knows a little bit about everything and quite a bit about a couple of things. If he were younger (he's in his 70's) he'd probably get his news from HN. I've often wondered if his "intellectual intelligence" was transferred to her but in a different form... like she used it in a different way, in interacting with and reading people, instead of books.
I suspect at the biological level there are vary few differences in "types of intelligence" but people can get vary good at solving the types of problems they have already solved. I think the real trick is not to measure people based on what you are good at but what they are good at.
Coders can often walk though large logic problems instantly, but IMO that's the same basic thing as an artist knowing which 12 lines capture the basic idea of a picture. Think of it like the brain missing the correct API's, you can fake it but it's slow and buggy. But, if you start to spend 10,000+ hours solving the same types of problems and you are going to create that foundation.
EX: Cab drivers develop much better spatial reasoning skills over time. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/677048.stm
Coders can often walk though large logic problems instantly, but IMO that's the same basic thing as an artist knowing which 12 lines capture the basic idea of a picture. Think of it like the brain missing the correct API's, you can fake it but it's slow and buggy. But, if you start to spend 10,000+ hours solving the same types of problems and you are going to create that foundation.
EX: Cab drivers develop much better spatial reasoning skills over time. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/677048.stm
@Coders can often walk through large logic problems instantly: I work in an IT shop where we write in house systems to support the business processes of nontechnical people. When we try to hammer out business requirements for systems we'll often have discussions with customer where we carefully question "OK, so it is ALWAYS the case that P and Q implies R", and "It's NEVER the case that P or R implies S" and so forth. The customer will say yes, yes, yes, throughout this, then she'll mention some other case can happen that logically invalidates the rest of everything she said. Only, she doesn't realize this because she doesn't have a coder's hard-edged sense of logic. But when this happens I, my boss, and my boss's boss (the CIO) will all three exchange a quick incredulous look with each other at the same time because we all ran through the logic and found the contradiction nearly instantly. Or, that is to say, as she was talking we were all three building up the same structure in our minds, and the last thing she says brings it crashing down in all three of our heads at the same time.
Trying to explain that to a non-coder is not easy to do without appearing arrogant, and I think that is why people in IT can appear rude. How do you politely say, "Your mental representations are so messy and imprecise I'm having trouble categorizing what you need?"
Trying to explain that to a non-coder is not easy to do without appearing arrogant, and I think that is why people in IT can appear rude. How do you politely say, "Your mental representations are so messy and imprecise I'm having trouble categorizing what you need?"
How do you politely say, "Your mental representations are so messy and imprecise I'm having trouble categorizing what you need?"
You say: "OK, now that we've covered the standard flow, let's talk about the strange cases. What are the weird situations that come up once in a while?"
For many users, "ALWAYS" translates to "always, except for the oddball case", and "NEVER" translates to "not usually, but you never know."
That's why Requirements Analysis is as much about psychology and anthropology as it is about logic.
You say: "OK, now that we've covered the standard flow, let's talk about the strange cases. What are the weird situations that come up once in a while?"
For many users, "ALWAYS" translates to "always, except for the oddball case", and "NEVER" translates to "not usually, but you never know."
That's why Requirements Analysis is as much about psychology and anthropology as it is about logic.
'"OK, so it is ALWAYS the case that P and Q implies R", and "It's NEVER the case that P or R implies S"'
The number of real world problems where ALWAYS applies is vanishingly small. This is the reason that rule based artificial intelligence floundered. The answer to almost every interesting question is some variation of "sometimes", "often", "almost always", "except when", etc. This is why statistical techniques and machine learning have led to solutions to many problems where rule based AI was an abject failure.
The number of real world problems where ALWAYS applies is vanishingly small. This is the reason that rule based artificial intelligence floundered. The answer to almost every interesting question is some variation of "sometimes", "often", "almost always", "except when", etc. This is why statistical techniques and machine learning have led to solutions to many problems where rule based AI was an abject failure.
I attended a talk on multiple intelligences a few years ago. The speaker, a research psychologist, said that there are indeed several types of intelligence. They all covary with each other and the property with which their covariance is greatest is called the g factor: general intelligence. The best (but not perfect) measure of g factor is IQ.
I saw this link here on HN a short while ago from a person more passionate than me when it comes to IQ:
Spearman's g, a statistical myth
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html
I was interested and looked it up - here it is if others haven't seen it:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_crea...
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_crea...
It's a problem definitely, one that always aggravates me. It's about perception of the job too. I struck up a conversation with a guy on the train the other day; he was a journalist - a field I've always been fascinated by.
As soon as I told him what my job he barely spoke about his own - it was just constant banal anecdotes about what I did, how bad he was with computers and how I must be amazing and...
On one level it attests to how important computers have become in our daily lives. Mostly it just makes me sad because, really, I'm just an IT guy!
As soon as I told him what my job he barely spoke about his own - it was just constant banal anecdotes about what I did, how bad he was with computers and how I must be amazing and...
On one level it attests to how important computers have become in our daily lives. Mostly it just makes me sad because, really, I'm just an IT guy!
I rarely tell people what I do because I hate those stories. I don't care that you broke your printer and your 4 year old niece fixed it by putting more paper in. Yes, she is super smart for actually reading the error message that said "Out of Paper".
I also can't stand it when somebody tells me they are just completely computer stupid. And that's before we've even said hello.
I also can't stand it when somebody tells me they are just completely computer stupid. And that's before we've even said hello.
I find that it's not so much inability so much as fear. A lot of people (especially the older generation) seem to think that if they futz with a computer they'll irreparably break it - so they stop and call an expert as soon as something deviates from normal workflow.
You think you're creating a UI that encourages learning by exploration, but a lot of your users are too terrified of their machine to dare click that button.
This is something we need to work with and educate users about - they're not stupid, they're overly cautious.
You think you're creating a UI that encourages learning by exploration, but a lot of your users are too terrified of their machine to dare click that button.
This is something we need to work with and educate users about - they're not stupid, they're overly cautious.
Perhaps a user interface should have a "fearful user" mode, where a tooltip on each button describes the worst-case scenario that'd happen by clicking it, and how to recover from that to a pristine, unclicked state.
Couldn't agree more. My mom can get stuff done (email attachments, etc.) if she is sitting alone and absolutely has to do it.
If at all I am available, she will ask help for the smallest stuff fearing she would break something.
Sometimes I think its not even about breaking anything, but more about not fancying herself to recover from "even more damage."
If at all I am available, she will ask help for the smallest stuff fearing she would break something.
Sometimes I think its not even about breaking anything, but more about not fancying herself to recover from "even more damage."
This is a big part of it. When I'm helping somebody with their computer, I always tell them that they can't break it and not to worry about it.
I used to be able to tell people that, back in the DOS era. Unfortunately, in the Internet era, I'm afraid the people afraid they'll break it if they do something wrong are perfectly correct. One quick download of Bonzi Buddy and You Have Lost, for one instance from my own personal network.
That still doesn't break it. You just reimage and go.
That's the beautiful thing about software - you can't physically destroy anything, such that it can't be moderately easily recreated.
I can't backup my car, so I'm extremely hesitant about messing about with the transmission or exhaust or what have you.
It's trivial to backup my computer and data, and just go for broke. Worst case, I'm out some time, but no real dollar cost.
That's the beautiful thing about software - you can't physically destroy anything, such that it can't be moderately easily recreated.
I can't backup my car, so I'm extremely hesitant about messing about with the transmission or exhaust or what have you.
It's trivial to backup my computer and data, and just go for broke. Worst case, I'm out some time, but no real dollar cost.
It might be trivial for you to backup your computer, but it isn't for most people, and most people don't do it. And, beyond the risk of data loss, people now also have to worry about identity theft and other financial loss if they do the wrong thing on their computer. (Keeping in mind here that for most people, browser == computer.)
That's an advantage of having an old, already-broken car. The potential downside of messing with it is small relative to the potential upside. I've a friend who has a nice BMW he drives every day but he recently bought an old junky Jeep and is rebuilding it in the back yard with his kids. They're a little too young to follow what all the parts do but not too young to learn that cars aren't just sealed black boxes; they're collections of parts that do things which we can take apart and put back together.
my dad used the excuse of breaking the computer to not let me mess around with them when I was a kid. That probably set me back from programming around 7 years or so, now that I think about it.
I worked at my college's computer help desk while earning my undergrad. Since the college distributed laptops to every student over half time (or by request if half or less) and every professor, lots of people needed help.
Not to pick on the gender, but girls who came in almost always started the explanation of their problem with some variation "I have no idea what I'm doing with this thing" or "You must think I'm a total idiot, but..."
A lot of the time, problems were simple and I could show them how to fix it in a matter of minutes. All I could ever tell them was that if they played with computers for a living, they'd get the hang of it too.
Not to pick on the gender, but girls who came in almost always started the explanation of their problem with some variation "I have no idea what I'm doing with this thing" or "You must think I'm a total idiot, but..."
A lot of the time, problems were simple and I could show them how to fix it in a matter of minutes. All I could ever tell them was that if they played with computers for a living, they'd get the hang of it too.
The girl in my office almost always starts off a request for tech support with the words "tom, you're clever".
Out of the two people she shares an office with she is definitely the most tech literate by far... People do undersell themselves.
Out of the two people she shares an office with she is definitely the most tech literate by far... People do undersell themselves.
... always starts off a request for tech support with
the words "tom, you're clever".
I don't think I know anybody who I would call stupid. I do, however, know people who are intellectually lazy - they don't know, and they don't want to know. Which is not the same thing at all.
[Edit: in case that sounds obnoxious, I was aiming more for "frustrated"]
[Edit: in case that sounds obnoxious, I was aiming more for "frustrated"]
"they don't know, and they don't want to know"
I agree, this is usually my experience, as most of the people I interact with are fairly highly competent in their field.
One thing that bothers me is when I raise an idea, "could we do this...." for example. And they say no, it is not possible.
My latest example was, asking if animated characters in a video could have automated lip-synching, based on a text file (this could massively cut production times for new videos). No, it's not possible, was the answer, and when I disagree, everyone in the room kinda looks at me like I'm the idiot. [Of course it can be done, there are lots of products that do just that...and btw, I am the client in this scenario.]
Another example....we needed some customization in SharePoint, two specific requirements, that aren't provided out of the box. I went back to my desk, implemented demos for both in about 4 hours using jQuery. Did a demo at the next meeting....yes, that's nice, but jQuery isn't a standard here. So we turned to an outside consulting firm, and they implemented the easy feature using.....jQuery. (I don't think they knew how to do the other one, at least it hasn't gotten done).
So where I come from, the idea that you are surrounded by "idiots", which is a bit provocative, is often true. I don't pretend to be an expert in law, engineering, etc, but I constantly encounter experts in their field that behave as if they are experts outside their field.
I will always listen to the opposing side of my arguments and always consider that I may be wrong, but I rarely encounter someone I disagree with who is willing to debate the disagreement with an open mind, and consider that perhaps they may be incorrect.
How else should we consider these people?
One thing that bothers me is when I raise an idea, "could we do this...." for example. And they say no, it is not possible.
My latest example was, asking if animated characters in a video could have automated lip-synching, based on a text file (this could massively cut production times for new videos). No, it's not possible, was the answer, and when I disagree, everyone in the room kinda looks at me like I'm the idiot. [Of course it can be done, there are lots of products that do just that...and btw, I am the client in this scenario.]
Another example....we needed some customization in SharePoint, two specific requirements, that aren't provided out of the box. I went back to my desk, implemented demos for both in about 4 hours using jQuery. Did a demo at the next meeting....yes, that's nice, but jQuery isn't a standard here. So we turned to an outside consulting firm, and they implemented the easy feature using.....jQuery. (I don't think they knew how to do the other one, at least it hasn't gotten done).
So where I come from, the idea that you are surrounded by "idiots", which is a bit provocative, is often true. I don't pretend to be an expert in law, engineering, etc, but I constantly encounter experts in their field that behave as if they are experts outside their field.
I will always listen to the opposing side of my arguments and always consider that I may be wrong, but I rarely encounter someone I disagree with who is willing to debate the disagreement with an open mind, and consider that perhaps they may be incorrect.
How else should we consider these people?
My practical definition of stupidity is talking authoritatively about a subject one doesn't understand, and is incapable of explaining. Stupid people are often parroting things they've heard in various places, of which they have only the most superficial of understandings. Not being stupid is often knowing when to shut your mouth.
At a deeper level, it all comes down to being poor at evaluating the relative value of information sources, placing value in the judgment of people for social and political reasons rather than for their actual expertise in the subject matter. This inability to recognize expertise, easily vulnerable to misguiding, is the essence of idiocy.
At a deeper level, it all comes down to being poor at evaluating the relative value of information sources, placing value in the judgment of people for social and political reasons rather than for their actual expertise in the subject matter. This inability to recognize expertise, easily vulnerable to misguiding, is the essence of idiocy.
A more realistic and common definition I think would be talking authoritatively about a subject one knows a bit about (have read some articles, or genuinely has some expertise in), without considering who your audience is.....if you're truly intelligent, and someone disagrees with you, you should change into a different mode, determining whether the person actually knows what they are talking about, and the possibility that they know something you don't.
It's people like this that bother me...I don't know what the proper term for them is.
It's people like this that bother me...I don't know what the proper term for them is.
Sometimes there is nothing to understand. Code produced in my project at work is a good candidate for the daily WTF (http://thedailywtf.com/). I tried to explain the problem to the management but they didn't change anything. Now the project is more than a year late because the thing doesn't quite work. It is quite obvious that there are problems and if nothing is done when told, than the only logical conclusion is that they are stupid. My boss's answer to this now is "that's life". "Help me to understand" is in this case a waste of time and resource. Where is Darwin again ?
Change your job?
What looks like stupidity is almost always ignorance.
What people forget is that, half the time, that ignorance is yours.
What people forget is that, half the time, that ignorance is yours.
[deleted]
Yeah. If one can't explain the thing "on his fingertips" he doesn't understand the thing either.
Thanks for sharing: this is a pretty succinct summary of a much better way of approaching the world than the "everybody sucks, only I see the light." It's almost NEVER true, and the people who I know that are right often enough to say that, never would.
"To know that you do not know is the beginning of wisdom."
"To know that you do not know is the beginning of wisdom."
I've often found that people who "don't have the patience for stupid people" are really masking a deep seated insecurity. They figure out the one or two areas they regard as their strengths and arbitrarily define that as "intelligence" (and, sometimes, they really aren't even great at those cf: Dunning-Kreuger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dun...). That way, they can look at the world and see that the majority of people are "stupider" than them.
In reality, we all have areas of strengths and areas of weakness. Some people are great conceptual thinkers, some are great communicators, some are brilliant at being detail oriented etc. When I meet somebody for the first time, I really try and find where they are strong & I am weak so that I can learn something from them. Over so many dimensions of human endeavor, there's usually at least one or two major areas in which I feel like I gained something from that encounter.
Once in a while, you genuinely will meet someone who has nothing to teach you and nothing you want to associate with them. In those cases, I just put up a wall, be pleasant and engineer to be away from that person as soon as possible.
But I pretty much approach everybody with an open mind and a humble heart and it's worked wonders for me.
In reality, we all have areas of strengths and areas of weakness. Some people are great conceptual thinkers, some are great communicators, some are brilliant at being detail oriented etc. When I meet somebody for the first time, I really try and find where they are strong & I am weak so that I can learn something from them. Over so many dimensions of human endeavor, there's usually at least one or two major areas in which I feel like I gained something from that encounter.
Once in a while, you genuinely will meet someone who has nothing to teach you and nothing you want to associate with them. In those cases, I just put up a wall, be pleasant and engineer to be away from that person as soon as possible.
But I pretty much approach everybody with an open mind and a humble heart and it's worked wonders for me.
The interesting thing about this article is that it's assumed that the problem is on the other end.
This article isn't about how to work with "stupid" people, it's about how to pander like an asshole.
Are they afraid of the conclusion?
Are environmental stresses degrading their judgment?
Are they intimidated by you?
consider these potential cognitive and psychological problems
They may have good judgment but poor communication skills.
They may have raw intelligence, but poor thinking habits—patterns of absorbing, processing, and filing information.
They may have general insecurities that make them afraid of looking stupid or give them a psychological need to win arguments.
They may have a problem with you personally.
This article isn't about how to work with "stupid" people, it's about how to pander like an asshole.
Trying to overcome communication barriers and understand where other people are coming from is not “[pandering] like an asshole.”
Yes, but what if they are actually wrong, then what?
Part of the problem, particularly with Western culture, is the desire to assign everything a rank, without much clue as to whether or not the metric used is credible at all. Your GPA, SAT/ACT/GRE scores, IQ, credit rating, college major, average income and choice of university all form an impression on people who want a nice box to put you in, whether you like it or not. Sure, some intelligence is probably required to achieve high rankings in some of those areas, but it isn't indicative by itself of who you are or what you're capable of. To the perceptive crowd on Hacker News, this probably seems obvious, but to most of society, these facts and figures define who you are and what you should do with your life.
The best hope for humanity, in this regard, is to judge people on what they contribute or accomplish. This will probably never become a viable paradigm for most people, because it isn't inherently concrete; it's much harder to look at someone's entire life and judge their merit relative to someone else, rather than noting that a 3.5 GPA is higher than a 3.2 GPA. In fact, once you look at the big picture, it starts to become rather noticeable that judging people at all is, most of the time, a fruitless task.
The best hope for humanity, in this regard, is to judge people on what they contribute or accomplish. This will probably never become a viable paradigm for most people, because it isn't inherently concrete; it's much harder to look at someone's entire life and judge their merit relative to someone else, rather than noting that a 3.5 GPA is higher than a 3.2 GPA. In fact, once you look at the big picture, it starts to become rather noticeable that judging people at all is, most of the time, a fruitless task.
People like linear status orderings. They exist in every culture and get reinvented when there's no culture present at all.
That's why we're prepared to believe things about IQ that we'd never believe about processor or compiler benchmarks.
That's why we're prepared to believe things about IQ that we'd never believe about processor or compiler benchmarks.
Could you elaborate on the IQ remark? I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are (I have no particular opinion on the matter)
Try reading this, by Cosma Shalizi: http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html
I would suggest submitting that to HN as its own thing. It's quite a nice read.
Great article, thank you. It's the first well reasoned anti-g argument I've seen. I'm going to want to gather more information before I make a decision but I'm glad to have read something that challenges my opinions enough that a decision has to be made.
Thank you for that. Getting linked to a Cosma Shalizi article is always good for an hour of brain stretching, and that one is particularly wonderful.
>People like linear status orderings. They exist in every culture and get reinvented when there's no culture present at all.
You're right, I think I was just letting my cynicism towards the United states bleed through with that comment.
>That's why we're prepared to believe things about IQ that we'd never believe about processor or compiler benchmarks.
That's a brilliant parallel, but also a stunningly-accurate one.
You're right, I think I was just letting my cynicism towards the United states bleed through with that comment.
>That's why we're prepared to believe things about IQ that we'd never believe about processor or compiler benchmarks.
That's a brilliant parallel, but also a stunningly-accurate one.
My hypothesis is that the best predictor for belief in the validity of IQ, is IQ. I'm not sure if that would support or contradict your statement. I'm sure it could be used to argue either way.
I can provide you with a potential counterexample. Acedemics were never important to my family growing up. School was viewed as a waste of time. I wasted a good portion of my life doing manual labor jobs.
One day, I read a book on IQ and took the IQ tests in the back of the book. The description next to my score said something like "With this IQ, you can be anything you want to be". Regardless of the accuracy of the test or the description, I was inspired and have since gone on to do some great things.
One day, I read a book on IQ and took the IQ tests in the back of the book. The description next to my score said something like "With this IQ, you can be anything you want to be". Regardless of the accuracy of the test or the description, I was inspired and have since gone on to do some great things.
That doesn't make the metric any more accurate though. It just means it gave you a result that inspired you. That's good for you, but why the hell aren't schools inspiring kids like this, instead of grinding them into the mindset required to "be successful", which usually boils down to rote memorization and lots of busy work?
Great insights. I think I've fallen into this trap more than once.
Good article. I wish more of those smug arrogant idiots who think everyone else is an idiot would read this :P
We all have vastly inflated images of ourselves. Every single person.
That is massively, dangerously wrong. Dunning, Kruger and an array of later researchers have shown that while the inept do strongly overestimate their own abilities, the highly able strongly underestimate them. The very able assume that if a task was easy for them it must be easy for everyone, while the completely inept assume that a task seems difficult because it is objectively difficult, and that they must be very able to have made the progress that they did. The lower you estimate your own ability to be, the more likely it is that you are in fact highly able. CF Downing demonstrated that people with high intelligence tend to overestimate the intelligence of people who are similarly intelligent to themselves and underestimate their own. If you think that the people around you are more intelligent than you, you're statistically likely to be the most intelligent person you know.
Personally, I think this is a highly pertinent cognitive bias, so pervasive as to affect nearly every aspect of modern life. I think that our most able thinkers keep quiet for fear of being wrong, whilst the stupidest and least informed in our society shout from the rooftops in blissful ignorance. I think that between the natural effect of "the more you know, the more you realise you don't know" and the pervasive anti-intellectualism in our society, we are becoming dominated by the loud and inept.
In my work as a gambler, I rejoice in this bias, as it is what pays my bills - bad gamblers can't even conceive the idea that there might be skill involved. Unfortunately, I think it is fucking up society - while professional scientists are careful to speak precisely, avoid hyperbole and only make statements that are backed by strong evidence, their opponents feel free to rant and rave, to extrapolate one anecdote into compelling evidence, even to deny the possibility of objectivity.
Personally, I think this is a highly pertinent cognitive bias, so pervasive as to affect nearly every aspect of modern life. I think that our most able thinkers keep quiet for fear of being wrong, whilst the stupidest and least informed in our society shout from the rooftops in blissful ignorance. I think that between the natural effect of "the more you know, the more you realise you don't know" and the pervasive anti-intellectualism in our society, we are becoming dominated by the loud and inept.
In my work as a gambler, I rejoice in this bias, as it is what pays my bills - bad gamblers can't even conceive the idea that there might be skill involved. Unfortunately, I think it is fucking up society - while professional scientists are careful to speak precisely, avoid hyperbole and only make statements that are backed by strong evidence, their opponents feel free to rant and rave, to extrapolate one anecdote into compelling evidence, even to deny the possibility of objectivity.
the highly able strongly underestimate them.
I think that's a lot less generalizable than you suppose. For details, see
http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238...
Both behavioral economics and cognitive psychology show that most people overestimate their abilities most of the time.
I think that's a lot less generalizable than you suppose. For details, see
http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238...
Both behavioral economics and cognitive psychology show that most people overestimate their abilities most of the time.
> while professional scientists are careful to speak precisely
Umm, no. They're almost always careful when speaking to cohorts about their field, but if either of those change, all bets are off.
And, they're often willing to let proxies rant, and often encourage it, to go beyond what they'll say, to maintain their plausible deniability.
Scientists are people too.
Umm, no. They're almost always careful when speaking to cohorts about their field, but if either of those change, all bets are off.
And, they're often willing to let proxies rant, and often encourage it, to go beyond what they'll say, to maintain their plausible deniability.
Scientists are people too.
You mean, everyone is above average? ;)
Well, most people have above-average number of fingers :)
This seems to be sort of a primer on rhetoric - how to effectively address an argument instead of dismissing it as merely stupid. He touches on a number of rhetorical techniques somewhat informally and I like his treatment of the subject. If you found this interesting, I'm in the middle of a book on the subject of argument and rhetoric that is actually quite engaging, called Thank You For Arguing by Jay Heinrichs.
I think it's partially the environment. When I'm in an environment with people who are interested in the things that I am, I am constantly amazed at how bright people can be.
E.g. at university programming classes, some of the students are... crazy smart...
However, when I'm around people who don't share my interests, it can get tedious trying to explain things.
E.g. at university programming classes, some of the students are... crazy smart...
However, when I'm around people who don't share my interests, it can get tedious trying to explain things.
[deleted]
Obvious as all this seems, I've found in managing people that it's generally something they have to learn for themselves from scratch. And it was something I had to learn for myself. It's so much easier to wrap yourself in the comfortable delusion that you're right and everyone else is a moron - those idiots in Department X have no idea how anything works and have no sense of the strategy etc etc. Engaging with the full complexity of a situation and still finding a path forward is something that comes with maturity.
"stupid refers to lack of ability while ignorant refers to lack of knowledge" -- Therasus
You can educate ignorance, you can't rewire stupidity.
You can educate ignorance, you can't rewire stupidity.
Isn't there a saying that all people are logical and rational, but everybody just starts from unique assumptions.
stupidity isn't very common... but laziness and indifference are a different story.
I don't know why you wouldn't assume that stupidity is roughly as common as intelligence. By definition, 50% of the population is below the median.
That says nothing about the distribution, or the absolute levels.
Most people are pretty competent in breathing, they don't suffocate. Still half of them are below median in their breathing abilities.
Most people are pretty competent in breathing, they don't suffocate. Still half of them are below median in their breathing abilities.
I'm assuming you're going by academic measures of intelligence. I was referring something more general like EQ.
I completely disagreed with him on all fronts. However, I'm not sure that he was stupid. The impression I got was that he was working with a completely different set of axioms than I was.
At some level, you can't ask why any more. There has to be some sort of core base to your beliefs. My core belief is in things like science and math. His core belief was in the concrete word for word truth in the bible. Intelligence didn't really play into it.
When you think something is stupid, a lot of times it has to be with the core assumptions that underly their beliefs. Unearthing and understanding these beliefs and agreeing to disagree is very important.