DoctorRosenpenis
92897
2489
99
Don't know the original source, if anyone does I'd be happy to credit them.
Aug 2, 2020 5:44 PM
DoctorRosenpenis
92897
2489
99
Don't know the original source, if anyone does I'd be happy to credit them.
kkanne20
The people who need to hear this won’t listen, unfortunately.
Iliketodisagree
Well now I want to play chess.
Grillparzer
The author is equating a skill with knowledge. I'm knowledgeable about bicycling. I could discuss bicycling with Eddy Merckx, but...
Grillparzer
never hope to compete in a race against him.
Jak8714
To everyone who's going 'chess expertise' isn't equivalent to 'scientific expertise', just remember, the whole chess bit is a metaphor.
Jak8714
It isn't supposed to be a literal comparison, it's just a simple way of illustrating the scope of the issue so everyone can understand it.
justonemorepicturepls
Everyone who has written an academic thesis will know the feeling of trying to explain to a layperson what their thesis is about
Jordinatinglybeautiful
It’s a very big leap to compare chess skills with prof experience. Almost as if the writer has a 5yr old’s level of training in rhetoric...
rsp602020
Spoken by someone with numbingly average Chess comprehension abilities.
Lobuttomize
He literally says chess is about knowing what to do in a situation which is completely different from general intelligence
JungleJme
Mmm. I'm entirely unsure about the point. Because this can effectively be used as an argument for fascist and totalitarian ideals.
JokerVonDoloh
"People are different" can (and was, mnay times) succesfully used as an argument for every autoritarian/feudal/etc. order ever.
CantEscapePolitics1
Yes but getting those ppl to even read this is the same as getting a 5yr old to eat broccoli
leafspring
You‘re assuming that spotting an error requires as much experience as creating scientific works, which it often does not. I don‘t have 1/2
leafspring
to be an expert in statistics to spot a faulty study for example. On the other hand, coming up w/ an alternative scientific explanation 2/3
leafspring
or evaluating a scientific process should indeed be left to the experts. Criticise but know your limits. #dunningkruger 3/3
papayaparty
"you don't need to dedicate your life to computer science and programming, just take this 2 week coding bootcamp to make 100k"
AdobewanKenobe
SilkyAvenger
Dunning Kruger
pinatafarmer
I'm torn between a "I'd destroy them on call of duty" and a "yeah, but what good is chess when I punch those nerds in the face?" joke...
VictorFries
Not entirely accurate, even GM's blunder occationally, meaning 100/100 win rate isn't entirely correct.
corsec202
What about Mr So-called Gordon Ramsey?
AdobewanKenobe
It's a shame that most of the people who need to know this would not read it or even if they did, would not comprehend it.
spict
No. That still isn't science. That just sorting by different selected narrow measures.
SimpDaddyDee
Glad this post points out FB 'researchers'. That's actually what the Cultists call themselves. It's the QAnon cult, and it's DANGEROUS.
ReginaKasteen
"By the same margin" is inherently meaningless when that margin is "all of them". By that token, a GM will beat 5-year-olds and adults at 1/
ReginaKasteen
the same rate, so clearly 5-year-olds and adults have exactly the same intelligence. *consider this* Well... it needs more investigation. /2
artfuldodger982
This is a pretty dumb argument clearly showing you missed the point. It's not intelligence. It's knowledge of the field and to an expert
artfuldodger982
Your research vs 5 year old's research might as well be the same rambling.
ArkoneAxon
This is not an accurate comparison to anti-maskers. Anti-maskers are people who insist they can play Chess, but refuse to learn the rules.
ProppaGanda
This is wrong. Chess is not social science and most of our policies are results of interpretations of social sciences. As much as I'm up for
ProppaGanda
expert knowledge being the cornerstone of the society it can lead us astray to dangerous elitism and alienation. Chess is a game of pattern
ProppaGanda
recognition within a simple set of rules. The society is not. No single person can know them nor we collectively. And as Piketty says,
ProppaGanda
economy is too important to be left to experts.
ace5762
Not only that, but modern society is specifically built on role specialisation. You wouldn't tell a rocket scientist how to do their job.
HahaNoir
Unless you're Trump.
linearcore
Rocket science also isn't common sense. "We're going to pack a metal tube with explosives and then ignite them, but in a controlled way." 1/
linearcore
"Aren't explosions, by definition, 'uncontrolled'?" "Yes. We're putting people in there, too." 2/
linearcore
...Yet, it works, and we get: /3
darthstormer
But VeggieMamma92 explained the whole, complex situation clearly in a 4 minute YouTube video, so I'm something of a virology expert as well.
Gababu
and guess who is something of a scientist?
batbot9
So called “expert”
usafsmith8408
siskoisbest
"But first, we need to talk about parallel universes."
fsfrms
That's a bit longer than 4 minutes
marteney1
dyxj
eyekunt
Whose momma come again?
CoffeeRocks
So... We're just done with phrasing?
Itslukus
You all might be... i, however, am not.
TeDmund
I'm a psychologist and people are always like "sounds like common sense" and I'm like "they used to dip people in ice-baths"
Grillparzer
To be fair, the entire history of psychology is filled with completely sensible ideas that were rational, logical, and completely wrong.
linearcore
"Common sense" is partly responsible for the centuries European scientific regression. A single experiment blows Aristotelian physics 1/
linearcore
completely out of the water, all you need is a rock and a piece of paper/papyrus. And yet, no one would do it because it was "common 2/
linearcore
sense." So, they trusted him, and *poof* the fucking "dark ages" (I know it wasn't really a "dark age," but there was serious regression)./3
JokerVonDoloh
I prefer sliding rock on ice. Can always jokingly say "But there is no ice on lakes in Greece, so no idea of indefinite mechanical motion".
linearcore
I prefer the "heavier objects intrinsically fall faster" disprove. If that's true and you put a flat rock on top of a sheet of papyrus, 1/
linearcore
and drop them, then the papyrus would have to slow the fall of the rock. Otherwise the property isn't intrinsic. 10 second experiment. /2
khora
If B beats C 100% and A beats B 100% you can't say the step between A, B and C are equal.
Notme68
The step may not be equal, but the outcome is.
khora
That is not under dispute.
linearcore
It's a logarithmic scale.
khora
I can beat a house cat in chess 100%. Doesn't mean it is as smart as a 5 yo.
linearcore
Which is not at all what the context of the post is about. Chess was an analogous example. The reader is expected to extrapolate from that.
khora
One of us is certainly missing the point. If you push a test past its breaking point you don't know where that is. If they set up 1/
khora
the chess game so that it on average played 99 to 1, then we know the power relationships.
BigIrv5151
This is an oblique explanation of Trump and Hydroxychloroquine.
marteney1
Welcome to the party
TheeRealDuke
It's not /that/ oblique.
Lambast
"Yes, but if Obama and the libs hadn't stopped us injecting Hydrochloric Acid, the death rate would have been much lower." -Q
SonOfTheDarkStranger
This is a blatant explanation of Der Trumpkopf and EVERY CONCEIVABLE MENTAL CAPACITY.
Thorbane
Except for pandering to his base, unfortunately.
SonOfTheDarkStranger
Both his pandering and his base are devoid of all mental capacity...
duckasaurus8
Eh, this can be misleading. In common situations involving uncertainty, research proves “common sense” can be more accurate than 1/x
duckasaurus8
sophisticated model. Essentially, models (esp in economics) tend to be overfit to the past and fail to predict well
TheHourGrowsLate
My common sense tells me that sophisticated models work much better than common sense.
duckasaurus8
Looks up the Makridakis Competitions - since 1982 been proving how little sophistication improves predictions
TheHourGrowsLate
These appear to be about complex models vs simple models, not "common sense". "Common sense" is essentially a nonsense phrase that can be
TheHourGrowsLate
used to justify any assumption, i.e. "I've never met anyone who got Ebola, therefore Ebola is likely a hoax" or "My grandpa stuck a pinecone
duckasaurus8
It’s more complex than that, but predictions of experts do not follow the same logic as this
duckasaurus8
Also, in this case, chess has a known result. Many real world situations don’t have a knowable “winning move”
Zonga
Now realize that the best chess computer program outperforms the best grandmaster by a similar factor.
Tminus1622d
Do they actually do that now? Because afaik, Deep Blue made a big ass mistake against Kasparov and he was like 'omg, I dont understand this>
Tminus1622d
move at all, the computer must be way ahead of me in moves.' but it actually did the computer equivalent of pooping its pants.
LordofSandvich
Specifically, it bugged out and made a completely random move. It wasn't intentional on the program's part.
AnUnknownErrorOccurred
Cool. Didn't know this. But also, Kasparov vs Deep Blue was like 25 years ago. Computers today are far beyond any human.
Googol30
Deep Blue was the first computer to slightly beat a grandmaster. Stockfish can beat DB 100/100 and AlphaZero can in turn beat SF 100/100.
CrazyEarl
Then there is Go.
Zonga
Oh yes. AlphaGo was definitely the "well, crap" moment. And I for one welcome our new robot overlords!
Googol30
The only game left for computers to beat us at is Calvinball: https://xkcd.com/1002/
AnUnknownErrorOccurred
Seriously. *makes broad gesture* Look what humans have done with the place. Us meatbags had our chance.
TheEmeraldProphylactic
They also programmed a computer to learn how to LOSE AT CHESS, AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE!! Isn’t that so counter-intuitive and awesome?
SenselessSentiments
sauce?
JoschiGray
.
jimicus
Hey, I can do that already!
sorryfornocapitalssorryimsorry
this computer would make you look like a grand master!
jimicus
Actually, I think I could probably beat it. My record is 2 moves.
IchNicht1
To me you look like a 5 year old throwing a tantrum trying to lose at chess
nananashisan
u foking wot m8 I'll lose my ass so hard you ask "huh did I just win?" then the toaster pops out bread, you look up and I'm already gone
regicidalveggie
and google created a program that didn't learn chess, but applied machine learning to beat that machine repeatedly
Zonga
Yup, and now the same basic architecture generates fake mugshots, writes convincing prose, and scans crowds for shady looking minorities.
regicidalveggie
oh it's got some terrifying implications for the future of computing, privacy, jobs...
Zonga
Oh, and automatically adjusts your Twitter, Facebook and Google News feeds to be as addictive as possible.
YouMayFindThisMildlyInteresting
And all for a bit more ad revenue.
doktorsmith
Not gonna lie, it’s some pretty impressive evil. Not that maniac that reveals his plan evil. It’s that bad guy in “Saw” evil.
BenSnow97
This is why I'm against feeds of all kind. For example, I never go to YouTube's home page, only my subscriptions which I precisely control.
dyxj
So a carefully curated bubble? That's still technically a feed, btw.
HaveNotOf
How do you learn about new people to subscribe to?
StellaZaFella
I’m not sure if this applies to all fields though. Chess is a a developed skill. The more experience you have, usually the better you 1/?
Trickky
Not true, practical knowledge is very valuable, the more a doctor actually practices medicine the better he'll be.
wizdro
Not true. An actual study that analyzed patient outcomes determined younger doctors saw fewer deaths and complications.
Areawoman84
This shit. I mean really, you think doctors and physicists can just read a whole bunch and bam! That's what it takes! Total expert
Areawoman84
READING A LOT IS NOT THE SAME AS APPLYING KNOWLEDGE TO SOLVE PROBLEMS.
StellaZaFella
end up being. Knowledge is more about exposure to a lot of information and your ability to understand and reason and expand on those 2/?
chiechien
The ability to understand and synthesize that information is a developed skill.
BoooBoooooBOOOOOOOOO
Sure but such a thing is difficult to quantify. What metric could you use to rank people's understanding?
StellaZaFella
You can’t practice or become ranked or have distinct levels in a given field in the same sort of way that you can in a game. 3/3
Welltron3030
Yeah, I'm pretty damned good at vidoegames but I fucking suck at theoretical physics
whatIdontknowcouldfillawarehouse
I think you are right. But there might be a gradual shift from hard science to the arts. Like Mozart and Beethoven, who played at 5 years!
IcommentMostlyWithGifs
DannyDubs
But developing understanding is still a question of practice. You practice solving problems within that domain, you practice applying ideas
AdamMitchell23
Yeah; really the main difference, as it says, it that in chess you can systematically rank ability but you can't really in other fields.
DannyDubs
in a wide variety of contexts, you practice by developing hypotheses and testing them. The more experience you have, the better you end up.
DannyDubs
An example: experts in math have intuitions about what the solution to an equation will look like, while novices have no idea.
EltaninDracoPwc
The science in grade school is full of approximations. 'higher ranked' scientists solve problems w/o approximations and with error analysis
nerdyvet
Application of knowledge requires more than the aquisition. Also, there are absolutely "ranks" of knowledge. They're called degrees.
LordNergal
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/europe/augusto-odone-father-behind-real-life-lorenzos-oil-dies-at-80.html It is possible for the 1/
LordNergal
inexperienced to advance science through a discovery that science didn't think to try. That is why the chess analogy fails. 2/2
MakeItBackAlright
Exams serve as ranks. They don't have a special name for passing them but someone with 2 years of basic science could pass the MCAT but not
MakeItBackAlright
STEP1. Each represents several years of dedicated study. Also, knowledge is a skill. Patterns only become visible with continuous, dedicated
MakeItBackAlright
acquisition and USE of large volumes of information.
IATTM
Although I agree with a lot of what's presented in the post, most fields don't have this systematic rating. Just because someone spends -
Trickky
You don't ahve a systematic rating, but talent is spread out in a bell curve for everything. A rating system only describes that.
IATTM
Years studying and playing chess does not mean they will be better than someone who does it as a hobby. Many fields you can be just good -
IATTM
Enough to rise up but not be that exceptional. Maybe finding a way to apply chess-like ratings to each field would result in this position-
IATTM
Being proves true. A case in point, you have divided opinions on how best to do things by different experts in the same field.