3,408 karma · joined November 19, 2016
The cool factor is maybe 25% of it for me. It's mainly an obsessive hobby.
I was always struck how nobody roasts chestnuts anymore. Then I learned how some forests in the US had 25% chestnut trees and that blight killed almost all of them. What a fascinating thing that chestnuts were as common as acorns for our grandparents and great-grandparents but are almost non-existent for us.
I think this falls down if the consequence of bulldozing a fence are high and if the original builders of the fence are no longer around.
The problem isn't Chesterton's own making. The problem Chesterton is trying to solve is when, for whatever reason, most likely due to many generations passing, the purpose of the fence isn't written down.
That also ignores the fact that some fences are built through an emergent and collaborative process, and so no one is such a co-creator to write down why it is there.
I can't help but think this attitude is awful. Most people are too dumb to understand that it is the sick people who should wear masks!? Like what in the world!?
No. You shoot straight with the public. Then you plead with them to do what is best for everyone by wearing a mask when they are sick.
The alternative, as you suggested, is extremely damaging to society longterm.
$$ Y \sim aX+b+N $$
Where N is some statistically independent noise, mean zero.
This means the covariance between them is
$$ Cov(Y-X,X) = E[ ((a-1)X+b+N -(a-1)E[X]-b) (X - E[X]) ] $$
Which is
$$ Cov(Y-X,X) = E[(a-1)(X-E[X])(X-E[X])] + E[N(X-E[X])]= (a-1) Var[X] $$
To get a "DK effect" we need (a-1) < 0, or a < 1. If a=0, in the case of the blog post, then this is absolutely true. If a=1 (which, along with b=0, is the ideal scenario), then this is barely not true. If a > 1, then we'd have a whole new effect about arrogant experts.
So the only thing that matters from this "auto-correlation perspective" is the rate at which an individual's self-assessment increases with their ability. As long as they underestimate the increase, a "DK effect" will occur.
However, in the above analysis, we ignored the variable b. If a = 0.8 and b=0, we'd never have the so-called "DK effect" even though it matches the "auto-correlation perspective" because everyone would underestimate their ability.
This tells me that the value of b matters. It is sort of like the prior ability everyone assumes they have. What the DK papers shows is that b > .5, which I think is in line with the spirit of the popular interpretation of the "DK effect". People should not be assuming they have, at a minimum, a capacity higher than the average.
At the same time, the value b isn't insanely higher than .5, which also makes me want to cut those unskilled and unaware some slack. It "seems reasonable" to assume your baseline is average. That can't be the case, but it feels intuitive.
I think books are often long to give the reader some space to think. Perhaps the best readers know how to create their own space, but the worst readers require the sugar. In other words, books are long because people aren't good readers.
Hate to say it, but give 50 years, I wouldn't be surprised if Calvin and Hobbes turns into what you described.
- remote control to turn on/off lights in bed
- Bed sensor to turn on/off lights when heading to the bathroom at night
- define a scene (lights dimmed, shades down, mood lights on) to trigger in an event (Netflix turned on TV at 8pm)
- Remote control of wall AC unit out of the house (shut off while away but turn on before driving home)
- Alerts for when my brother turns on the coffee maker
- Control system to avoid coffee maker and microwave running together long enough and tripping the circuit breaker in your old apartment (haven't done this one)
- Alert to tell you when washing machine is done (or use to estimate how much time is left)
- use color lights as reminders or to signify events
- check to make sure doors are closed and locked at night
- check that door for room (or window in room) with AC is closed when AC is running, otherwise shut AC off
- alerts when someone gets home even if you are out of the house (know kid gets home from school, for example)
Ultimately it is a hobby. I had a raspberry pi 4 I bought and had just sitting around. It feels good to see it in the corner doing something cool.
- Those who approach technical conversations where all facts stated must be always true (usually details-oriented people).
- Those who approach technical conversations where facts stated should converge to the truth (usually highly intuitive people).
These two types tend to frustrate each other. Although, I would contend that everyone needs to have the capacity to operate in either mode.
For example, you _must_ be technically correct when programming. You cannot omit a closing parenthesis. However, if you are working on trying to solve the overall problem, usually something that could have multiple implementations, you need to brainstorm, which is best done when you are free to state things imprecisely.
You reject objective facts but respond with a claim about objectivity.