Everyone should be required to sign up for a year of being followed around by an inquisitive child who will pockmark the landscape of their knowledge with exploratory boreholes.
I have multiple environment and science degrees and feel generally knowledgeable and my oldest will put on his best Feynman face and be entirely unsatisfied when I offer and explain “Rayleigh scattering.”
I love it. I love it so much. I love how curious he is. I love how there is so much to not know. I would hate to know it all because I love exploring it with him.
On a somewhat related point, a lifestyle blogger & parent had coined the "fourth question" theory of sorts a few years ago - that, the fourth follow-up question a young child asks generally requires the parent to attempt to explain the meaning of existence, universe, and the like. I have also found this to be true.
I love it. Where else can I give a jumbled mostly-ok explanation of the standard model and cosmology until the other persons brain turns off from overstuffed-boredom and not get fact checked?
100 percent can relate on the relentless curiosity of a child. I was dumbfounded yesterday by this question -> if cars go at high speed, and breaks stop it suddenly, how come the friction doesn't generate enough heat to start a spark?
They generate enough energy to, I mean have you seen racing brake discs?
It's just that the energy is spread out over a larger area (brake discs/pads as opposed to a tiny spark) that is also constantly being cooled by air movement, so the energy in any one point is not enough to ignite any of the materials involved. It's why they used to put asbestos in the brake pads, but they now use ceramics and other heat-resistant materials.
I'd approach it by looking at the definition of a "spark", and the things we can change to avoid tripping that definition.
For a visual spark, it has to be something thrown off which is the right size, material, and a temperature to glow visibly to the human eye under normal light.
For a spark that starts a fire, it has to be something thrown off which has a certain temperature by the time it lands or travels to some other surface.
In both cases, hot very fine particles will cool quickly just by hitting the ambient air. If the underlying surface (e.g. brake disk) gets glowy-hot, we wouldn't call that a spark--it's too big, and fixed.
In my experience sparks are generally generated when quite small metal surfaces get in contact at high speeds, meaning they can generate a lot of friction in a very small point, and thus not have enough braking effect despite the local friction in one small point (think rail wheels squeeking in curves).
Brakes OTOH are designed to spread out the friction on a somewhat larger area, which allows more material to take up the friction and the heat, and spread it around.
I know brakes can get extremely hot too though, and after a really hard braking you might have to worry about deformed brakes sometimes.
Race cars tend to have really large breaks (and brake pads) for this reason.
Car brakes can get hot enough to start a fire (wood, paper, maybe even gasoline - see race cars) but a spark is a hot piece of material that is large enough so it can keep its heat for a while.
Brakes generate very fine dust that cools off almost immediately.
The concentration of energy is vital. Sort of like how if you fire a gun it will only push the person back a few centimeters but that energy condensed into a very small spot and fly through a car.
I would answer that heat is a form of energy. A horse pulling a carriage a 1000 yards requires more energy than pulling 30 yards.
When a car slams on the brakes the distance is too short to generate enough heat to deform. I would also suspect the treads would partially melt and deform before it catches on fire.
Has anyone here found ways to actively cultivate this kind relentless curiosity within themselves?
People sometimes describe me that way when I start asking unbridled questions. Personally, I find that I can activate this mode when trying to connect answers to some sense of life meaning and the myriad ways that unfolds. Many on the receiving end find the experience frustrating, though.
I think we get used to repeatable patterns more than develop comprehensive understanding. The former feels like accomplishment, while the later feels like perpetual confusion, IME.
> Has anyone here found ways to actively cultivate this kind relentless curiosity within themselves?
Yes; As a great fan of detective fiction specifically Poe(Dupin/Legrand) and Doyle(Holmes), I call it the "Sherlock Holmes - Dr. Watson method of interactive problem-solving" ;-)
Watson only sees the obvious, does not understand their meaning/causes/effects and starts asking questions. Holmes uses that to establish indisputable facts/evidence, reason analytically from effects to causes (i.e. the usual detective trope) or synthetically from the present to the future (i.e. prediction). Both authors in their stories often elaborate on methods of reasoning, which provide insights that can be adapted to problem-solving in general.
This is the scientific method in action viz. Observe, Measure, Hypothesize (and Model), Test, Draw Conclusions and finally, Iterate over all of the above to refine the hypothesis and minimize error.
Finally, the classic The Chemical History of a Candle by Michael Faraday is an excellent source to teach oneself/others/students/children on how to think scientifically in depth about anything - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chemical_History_of_a_Cand...
I remember my dad getting a lamp, and some coffee cups and using them to explain day/night to me. Thats the energy I want to bring for my own kiddos questions.
Here's an example making the rounds, originally from 2022: there is systemic bias in Americans' understanding of US national statistics about all kinds of subgroups:
I wouldn't be surprised if this were a general cognitive bias having to do with estimating proportions, and nothing to do specifically with minority groups.
do be fair, so is the truth. One can be both transgender and jewish (or a military veteran and live in texas!), theres no contradiction in that. In fact I would expect that most people are a minority in at least one way (note the presence of things like "live in new york" in the minorities there!)
"Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)."
I'm only here to first say I'm not like everyone else I do know things and can explain how things work. And computers work by making rocks think by putting magic smoke in them.
I suspect mainly because you don't and can't understand the world; you understand whatever simplified model of the world is inside your head and by default it's real unobvious just how simplified exactly.
At least recognizing that we hold simplified model of the world, and knowing that it is limited, is a reasonable place to be in and that helps to explore more.
There needs to be more "prediction depth", vs. explanatory depth. If you can explain something but can't predict what's going to happen, you don't have an understanding of it sufficient for engineering.
This is why economics is not much of a science. Not enough predictive power.
You have to be careful with the "Explanation(Understanding) vs. Prediction" dichotomy. They are related but Explanations should always have precedence since they are fundamental to creating a Theory in the first place that then can make Predictions.
David Deutsch actually argues for Understanding/Explanations over Predictions.
Here he points out that "good explanations" should be "hard-to-vary". What does he mean by this?
It means that "a good explanation" cannot be arbitrarily modified without unraveling its internal coherent structure or contradicting the very facts that it seeks to explain. The evidence and the internal logic that holds up the explanation are tightly coupled together as one organic whole thing.
A good test of this kind of thing is the "jump-start civilization" game. Basically imagine oneself sent back in time and think about how useful or likely useless all your modern knowledge would be at different periods.
in some sense you could push science so far ahead, germ theory, the structure of the atom, the immune system, silicon chips. All these "broad stroke" discoveries that you already know about. But when it comes down to brass tacks what is it worth? Like I know how a thermos works, and why it works, but heck if I know how one would actually consistently manufacture an evacuated double walled container. sent far enough back you would need to invent the vacuum pump, machines, maybe even steel itself just to produce a simple thermos.
makes you realize for all your knowledge you really never know absolutely everything, and that even simple things rely on chains of discovery, manufacturing and a whole lot of little details that we just don't think about ever.
This is why have Maxwells Equations in my anki deck, you never know when you're gonna wake up in 1000BC and need to kick humanity 2500 or so years forward.
I think it's because we don't really want to understand the world. I think it's because we mentally create microcosms that we more or less understand, at least from a practical perspective, and then try and fit the world within those frameworks. Some people get really good at constructing frameworks and manipulating them and they think they understand the world because for them especially, they've ceased to understand this process and they've sublimated it.
I feel like its human psychology that as we get exposed to the world and we learn it, we feel like we form an understanding of the world around us at a sufficient level to survive in our current circumstances. Then we have all sorts of stimuli and feedback that tell us whether our understanding is correct or not overtime. Sometimes we challenge that understanding and realise that we were wrong. Life is an iterative process of that.
Then as we move into building a career, we essentially need to understand a topic or field to a degree that we're useful enough to sell it or provide it as a service compared to others.
Do I understand some things more than others? Perhaps. Do I need to understand everything about a particular thing to be knowledge on it, perhaps not.
> Unfortunately, when information is not directly in front of us, our memories and conceptions of it are shaky at best―but our egos are still intact.
I have often found this when as part of my job I have been exposed to a particular area of my field. But years later when presented with questions about it, whilst I can't extract all of the information I have learnt, but if my memory is jogged the information comes back. For example, lets say you learnt a particular skill 5 years ago, but now you struggle to perform it. Egotistically you know you've been able to do it, but your lack of training in recent years prevents you from doing it.
I don't know ... I actually think I'm quite aware of a lot of how complicated many things can be.
Perhaps it is because I was really curious as a kid about how things work, peeked into things, really tried to understand how it works, and figured it was far from easy.
I also tried to draw bikes, and figured you really have to think it through quite hard the first times, lol.
> On the whole, people far too often hold strong opinions about topics for which they have limited information. This can cause social and political movements to have plenty of people behind them with limited ideas of what they are even fighting for.
> Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?
To repurpose a quote originally about believing in good-versus-evil:
> Lord Vetinari gave [Vimes] a friendly smile.
> “Of course, of course,” he said. “You have to believe that, I appreciate. Otherwise you’d go quite mad. Otherwise you’d think you’re standing on a feather-thin bridge over the vaults of Hell. Otherwise existence would be a dark agony and the only hope would be that there is no life after death. I quite understand.” He looked at his desk, and sighed.
Generally, it is people with a lower ability to understand the world that overestimate their own intelligence because they are unable to imagine anyone being smarter than them, and those on the smarter end who underestimate their own intelligence because they believe everyone else must be able to see what they are able to see.
There was a paper, quite famous now, on the topic titled "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
I feel like hearing this is dangerous in itself - even if you overestimate yourself, surely you yourself don't overestimate yourself as much as others?
Personally, I ran against a closed glass door yesterday. All I hope for is that I was entertaining to onlookers at least.
Funny story about that - there's a hotel in Edinburgh originally built in the mid-1800s, which was gutted and renovated with a lot of facade retention and architectural salvage to keep the look of the place. The centrepiece was the ornate brass and mahogany revolving door.
But when it was finished people kept walking into it the wrong way and getting stuck, and no-one could figure out why.
Eventually they sussed it out - until the early 1900s, no-one standardised on which way revolving doors go. Now, of course, they turn anti-clockwise - you pass people going the opposite way on your left, don't you?
It's when you don't have the capacity to know how dumb you are that you overestimate yourself, and you overestimate yourself (and underestimate others) far more than those able to see how dumb you actually are. It's when you are smart that you overestimate others, and underestimate yourself.
There are limits to this, plainly Einstein didn't think some guy as dumb as a bag of rocks was as smart as he was.
To me it seems, most of the time people will skip their knowledge gaps when explaining things, convincing themselves that there are none.
When you talk with a real expert on a topic, you can tell immediately, because answers are comprehensive yet short as well as answers to follow up questions.
Some even manage to explain things easier to understand at the same time.
i actually don't think you can tell immediately at all. Being an expert at a thing and also being a good communicator or teacher of that thing is absolutely not the same thing.
One can be an expert on a topic and produce research, or tools, or predictions, but could be terrible at pedagogy or communicating those thoughts to those outside of the field.
People are really quick to forget that there is an entire field of study dedicated to teaching people, and the reason there is this field of study is because its a lot more complex then people would like to think. Lots of smart people fall for this trap constantly thinking that "well I'm smart, so what I say must be smart", but then completely missing that their communication or output is off the mark entirely for an intended audience. Those people tend to then just shrug it off as "well they're stupid" (on the harsh end) or "well they don't know enough about X to understand this..." (on the less harsh end) rather than ever considering "could I have delivered or explained this better"?
It is very difficult to explain complex things in simple terms. It's probably the most complex thing humans cognitively do (synthesis vs analysis). Synthesizing a complex and very dynamic system or topic into analogies that are both (a) accurate models/shapes of the original and (b) understandable for non-experts is its own challenge separate from even understanding the topic itself at an expert level.
A toilet's operation wouldn't be too hard to explain to an alien who has enough science for interstellar travel. A siphon mechanism works the same way for them as for us (although they'd likely wonder at how primitive we are to be using such a wasteful mechanism).
"As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."
An excellent quote from Donald Rumsfeld, despite being an absolute cunt.
What I commonly see is people take a mental model that worked in the past and apply it in another context assuming it will work again. Irregardless of different constraints, people, or technologies. Agile cult members are the worst offenders. Second on my list are the HR pop psychology fads like Myers Briggs and Fish!
Everyone should be required to sign up for a year of being followed around by an inquisitive child who will pockmark the landscape of their knowledge with exploratory boreholes.
I have multiple environment and science degrees and feel generally knowledgeable and my oldest will put on his best Feynman face and be entirely unsatisfied when I offer and explain “Rayleigh scattering.”
I love it. I love it so much. I love how curious he is. I love how there is so much to not know. I would hate to know it all because I love exploring it with him.
On a somewhat related point, a lifestyle blogger & parent had coined the "fourth question" theory of sorts a few years ago - that, the fourth follow-up question a young child asks generally requires the parent to attempt to explain the meaning of existence, universe, and the like. I have also found this to be true.
I love it. Where else can I give a jumbled mostly-ok explanation of the standard model and cosmology until the other persons brain turns off from overstuffed-boredom and not get fact checked?
> the meaning of existence, universe, and the like
And the child will be too young to accept 42 as a satisfactory answer...
100 percent can relate on the relentless curiosity of a child. I was dumbfounded yesterday by this question -> if cars go at high speed, and breaks stop it suddenly, how come the friction doesn't generate enough heat to start a spark?
They generate enough energy to, I mean have you seen racing brake discs?
It's just that the energy is spread out over a larger area (brake discs/pads as opposed to a tiny spark) that is also constantly being cooled by air movement, so the energy in any one point is not enough to ignite any of the materials involved. It's why they used to put asbestos in the brake pads, but they now use ceramics and other heat-resistant materials.
Also, engineering.
I'd approach it by looking at the definition of a "spark", and the things we can change to avoid tripping that definition.
For a visual spark, it has to be something thrown off which is the right size, material, and a temperature to glow visibly to the human eye under normal light.
For a spark that starts a fire, it has to be something thrown off which has a certain temperature by the time it lands or travels to some other surface.
In both cases, hot very fine particles will cool quickly just by hitting the ambient air. If the underlying surface (e.g. brake disk) gets glowy-hot, we wouldn't call that a spark--it's too big, and fixed.
They actually might spark if the materials of the brakes weren't purposefully chosen to avoid a mini firework show when you suddenly brake.
Oof, the guy who went into the definition of sparks actually makes me realize this question branches off into so many different rabbitholes.
I think it is simply designed that way.
In my experience sparks are generally generated when quite small metal surfaces get in contact at high speeds, meaning they can generate a lot of friction in a very small point, and thus not have enough braking effect despite the local friction in one small point (think rail wheels squeeking in curves).
Brakes OTOH are designed to spread out the friction on a somewhat larger area, which allows more material to take up the friction and the heat, and spread it around.
I know brakes can get extremely hot too though, and after a really hard braking you might have to worry about deformed brakes sometimes.
Race cars tend to have really large breaks (and brake pads) for this reason.
Well, they do - you can get brakes red hot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUnEeiZK7bY
And, if you let the pads wear down too far so they're metal on metal they absolutely will spark.
How cool are those rally cars though?
Car brakes can get hot enough to start a fire (wood, paper, maybe even gasoline - see race cars) but a spark is a hot piece of material that is large enough so it can keep its heat for a while.
Brakes generate very fine dust that cools off almost immediately.
The concentration of energy is vital. Sort of like how if you fire a gun it will only push the person back a few centimeters but that energy condensed into a very small spot and fly through a car.
I would answer that heat is a form of energy. A horse pulling a carriage a 1000 yards requires more energy than pulling 30 yards.
When a car slams on the brakes the distance is too short to generate enough heat to deform. I would also suspect the treads would partially melt and deform before it catches on fire.
My kid is like this too. They love asking questions, and one answer usually leads straight to another. Sometimes it feels endless.
Here are a couple of ways you can nurture it - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49081436
It's ironic that AI today may give curious kids answers quicker if not better than asking humans or searching the web did.
Why not. May as well get those last edge cases of child rearing that haven’t already been outsourced.
Only kidding. Kinda.
May being the operative word, for now anyway for certain.
Brake pads?
Has anyone here found ways to actively cultivate this kind relentless curiosity within themselves?
People sometimes describe me that way when I start asking unbridled questions. Personally, I find that I can activate this mode when trying to connect answers to some sense of life meaning and the myriad ways that unfolds. Many on the receiving end find the experience frustrating, though.
I think we get used to repeatable patterns more than develop comprehensive understanding. The former feels like accomplishment, while the later feels like perpetual confusion, IME.
> Has anyone here found ways to actively cultivate this kind relentless curiosity within themselves?
Yes; As a great fan of detective fiction specifically Poe(Dupin/Legrand) and Doyle(Holmes), I call it the "Sherlock Holmes - Dr. Watson method of interactive problem-solving" ;-)
Watson only sees the obvious, does not understand their meaning/causes/effects and starts asking questions. Holmes uses that to establish indisputable facts/evidence, reason analytically from effects to causes (i.e. the usual detective trope) or synthetically from the present to the future (i.e. prediction). Both authors in their stories often elaborate on methods of reasoning, which provide insights that can be adapted to problem-solving in general.
This is the scientific method in action viz. Observe, Measure, Hypothesize (and Model), Test, Draw Conclusions and finally, Iterate over all of the above to refine the hypothesis and minimize error.
Finally, the classic The Chemical History of a Candle by Michael Faraday is an excellent source to teach oneself/others/students/children on how to think scientifically in depth about anything - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chemical_History_of_a_Cand...
Modern version of the book(free) and accompanying video lectures on Youtube - https://engineerguy.com/faraday/ and https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0INsTTU1k2UCpOfRuMDR...
> pockmark the landscape of their knowledge with exploratory boreholes
I've got a PhD in particle Physics. I develop the geometry module of machine tools.
I got lost when an auntie tried to explain crochet to me.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49081761
Reminds me of this comedy set https://youtu.be/Tf17rFDjMZw?si=QRyLMlfuKhavUnE7
I remember my dad getting a lamp, and some coffee cups and using them to explain day/night to me. Thats the energy I want to bring for my own kiddos questions.
Here's an example making the rounds, originally from 2022: there is systemic bias in Americans' understanding of US national statistics about all kinds of subgroups:
https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/41556-americans-misestimat...
(Although, apparently the poll didn't ask how uncertain they were. The question was, "If you had to guess, what percentage of American adults...")
I wouldn't be surprised if this were a general cognitive bias having to do with estimating proportions, and nothing to do specifically with minority groups.
The total of the estimates of minority group percentages is well over 100%!
do be fair, so is the truth. One can be both transgender and jewish (or a military veteran and live in texas!), theres no contradiction in that. In fact I would expect that most people are a minority in at least one way (note the presence of things like "live in new york" in the minorities there!)
I meant ethnic minorities:
"Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)."
Did they really estimate that 30% of us adults live in New York?
I'm only here to first say I'm not like everyone else I do know things and can explain how things work. And computers work by making rocks think by putting magic smoke in them.
I can confirm that I've let the magic smoke out of multiple electronics parts, and they almost always stop working, afterward.
Sounds delightfully like something the Chongqing Punk would say
I suspect mainly because you don't and can't understand the world; you understand whatever simplified model of the world is inside your head and by default it's real unobvious just how simplified exactly.
Pretty much. We just make the assumption that we can hold a model of the world in out head.
But like that old axiom about models goes 'All models are wrong, but some are useful.'
The taoists would argue that you shouldn't try to define everything because it will not help out after a certain point.
At least recognizing that we hold simplified model of the world, and knowing that it is limited, is a reasonable place to be in and that helps to explore more.
"Science is prediction, not explanation" - Hoyle.
There needs to be more "prediction depth", vs. explanatory depth. If you can explain something but can't predict what's going to happen, you don't have an understanding of it sufficient for engineering.
This is why economics is not much of a science. Not enough predictive power.
You have to be careful with the "Explanation(Understanding) vs. Prediction" dichotomy. They are related but Explanations should always have precedence since they are fundamental to creating a Theory in the first place that then can make Predictions.
David Deutsch actually argues for Understanding/Explanations over Predictions.
Here is a nice Reddit thread on this; David Deutsch argues that explanation, not prediction, is the primary goal of science. How widely accepted is this view? - https://old.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/comments/1trw2n...
David Deutsch: A New Way To Explain Explanation - (TED talk) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A and (Transcript of the previous) https://medium.com/dorothyknows/david-deutsch-a-new-way-to-e...
Here he points out that "good explanations" should be "hard-to-vary". What does he mean by this?
It means that "a good explanation" cannot be arbitrarily modified without unraveling its internal coherent structure or contradicting the very facts that it seeks to explain. The evidence and the internal logic that holds up the explanation are tightly coupled together as one organic whole thing.
A good test of this kind of thing is the "jump-start civilization" game. Basically imagine oneself sent back in time and think about how useful or likely useless all your modern knowledge would be at different periods.
in some sense you could push science so far ahead, germ theory, the structure of the atom, the immune system, silicon chips. All these "broad stroke" discoveries that you already know about. But when it comes down to brass tacks what is it worth? Like I know how a thermos works, and why it works, but heck if I know how one would actually consistently manufacture an evacuated double walled container. sent far enough back you would need to invent the vacuum pump, machines, maybe even steel itself just to produce a simple thermos.
makes you realize for all your knowledge you really never know absolutely everything, and that even simple things rely on chains of discovery, manufacturing and a whole lot of little details that we just don't think about ever.
This is why have Maxwells Equations in my anki deck, you never know when you're gonna wake up in 1000BC and need to kick humanity 2500 or so years forward.
I think it's because we don't really want to understand the world. I think it's because we mentally create microcosms that we more or less understand, at least from a practical perspective, and then try and fit the world within those frameworks. Some people get really good at constructing frameworks and manipulating them and they think they understand the world because for them especially, they've ceased to understand this process and they've sublimated it.
I feel like its human psychology that as we get exposed to the world and we learn it, we feel like we form an understanding of the world around us at a sufficient level to survive in our current circumstances. Then we have all sorts of stimuli and feedback that tell us whether our understanding is correct or not overtime. Sometimes we challenge that understanding and realise that we were wrong. Life is an iterative process of that.
Then as we move into building a career, we essentially need to understand a topic or field to a degree that we're useful enough to sell it or provide it as a service compared to others.
Do I understand some things more than others? Perhaps. Do I need to understand everything about a particular thing to be knowledge on it, perhaps not.
> Unfortunately, when information is not directly in front of us, our memories and conceptions of it are shaky at best―but our egos are still intact.
I have often found this when as part of my job I have been exposed to a particular area of my field. But years later when presented with questions about it, whilst I can't extract all of the information I have learnt, but if my memory is jogged the information comes back. For example, lets say you learnt a particular skill 5 years ago, but now you struggle to perform it. Egotistically you know you've been able to do it, but your lack of training in recent years prevents you from doing it.
Also see;
Wikipedia on Illusion of explanatory depth - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_explanatory_depth
The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3062901/
How you can learn in a world of information overload - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbiyPOn-__M
The structure and function of explanations - https://cognition.princeton.edu/publications/structure-and-f...
The Science of a Good Explanation with Tania Lombrozo - https://www.annieduke.com/the-science-of-a-good-explanation-...
I don't know ... I actually think I'm quite aware of a lot of how complicated many things can be.
Perhaps it is because I was really curious as a kid about how things work, peeked into things, really tried to understand how it works, and figured it was far from easy.
I also tried to draw bikes, and figured you really have to think it through quite hard the first times, lol.
> I also tried to draw bikes, and figured you really have to think it through quite hard the first times, lol.
The Science of Cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work (pdf) - https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03195929
> On the whole, people far too often hold strong opinions about topics for which they have limited information. This can cause social and political movements to have plenty of people behind them with limited ideas of what they are even fighting for.
> Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?
To repurpose a quote originally about believing in good-versus-evil:
> Lord Vetinari gave [Vimes] a friendly smile.
> “Of course, of course,” he said. “You have to believe that, I appreciate. Otherwise you’d go quite mad. Otherwise you’d think you’re standing on a feather-thin bridge over the vaults of Hell. Otherwise existence would be a dark agony and the only hope would be that there is no life after death. I quite understand.” He looked at his desk, and sighed.
-- Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett
Same reason we think we’re smarter than we actually are?
Generally, it is people with a lower ability to understand the world that overestimate their own intelligence because they are unable to imagine anyone being smarter than them, and those on the smarter end who underestimate their own intelligence because they believe everyone else must be able to see what they are able to see.
There was a paper, quite famous now, on the topic titled "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
I feel like hearing this is dangerous in itself - even if you overestimate yourself, surely you yourself don't overestimate yourself as much as others?
Personally, I ran against a closed glass door yesterday. All I hope for is that I was entertaining to onlookers at least.
Funny story about that - there's a hotel in Edinburgh originally built in the mid-1800s, which was gutted and renovated with a lot of facade retention and architectural salvage to keep the look of the place. The centrepiece was the ornate brass and mahogany revolving door.
But when it was finished people kept walking into it the wrong way and getting stuck, and no-one could figure out why.
Eventually they sussed it out - until the early 1900s, no-one standardised on which way revolving doors go. Now, of course, they turn anti-clockwise - you pass people going the opposite way on your left, don't you?
But this one was clockwise.
Yeah I would never have thought of that either.
Don’t be so hard on yourself; the poorly designed glass door did that for you already.
It's when you don't have the capacity to know how dumb you are that you overestimate yourself, and you overestimate yourself (and underestimate others) far more than those able to see how dumb you actually are. It's when you are smart that you overestimate others, and underestimate yourself.
There are limits to this, plainly Einstein didn't think some guy as dumb as a bag of rocks was as smart as he was.
The paper's combined author names become the shorthand for that long title...
I know, the long title deserves being said a bit more though IMO
To me it seems, most of the time people will skip their knowledge gaps when explaining things, convincing themselves that there are none.
When you talk with a real expert on a topic, you can tell immediately, because answers are comprehensive yet short as well as answers to follow up questions.
Some even manage to explain things easier to understand at the same time.
i actually don't think you can tell immediately at all. Being an expert at a thing and also being a good communicator or teacher of that thing is absolutely not the same thing.
One can be an expert on a topic and produce research, or tools, or predictions, but could be terrible at pedagogy or communicating those thoughts to those outside of the field.
People are really quick to forget that there is an entire field of study dedicated to teaching people, and the reason there is this field of study is because its a lot more complex then people would like to think. Lots of smart people fall for this trap constantly thinking that "well I'm smart, so what I say must be smart", but then completely missing that their communication or output is off the mark entirely for an intended audience. Those people tend to then just shrug it off as "well they're stupid" (on the harsh end) or "well they don't know enough about X to understand this..." (on the less harsh end) rather than ever considering "could I have delivered or explained this better"?
It is very difficult to explain complex things in simple terms. It's probably the most complex thing humans cognitively do (synthesis vs analysis). Synthesizing a complex and very dynamic system or topic into analogies that are both (a) accurate models/shapes of the original and (b) understandable for non-experts is its own challenge separate from even understanding the topic itself at an expert level.
A toilet's operation wouldn't be too hard to explain to an alien who has enough science for interstellar travel. A siphon mechanism works the same way for them as for us (although they'd likely wonder at how primitive we are to be using such a wasteful mechanism).
"If you're toilet is leaking its probably a faulty flapper" is rooted into my brain. What is a flapper, and why is it called a flapper?
If you reach the point where you actually do understand the world better than you did before, it can be a slippery slope :\
The Decision Lab is a great website. Always top-notch written information.
It's the unknown unknowns:
"As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."
An excellent quote from Donald Rumsfeld, despite being an absolute cunt.
What I commonly see is people take a mental model that worked in the past and apply it in another context assuming it will work again. Irregardless of different constraints, people, or technologies. Agile cult members are the worst offenders. Second on my list are the HR pop psychology fads like Myers Briggs and Fish!
If all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail...
[dead]
We are so full of ourselves we called ourselves Homo sapiens, wise man, but wise we don't seem to be.
I recently faced this feeling of overconfidence in knowledge trying to think about how seasons work or why rainbows have a curved or arcing shape.
You might think seasons are caused by the tilt of the earth, but why? Exercise left for the reader.
> We are so full of ourselves we called ourselves Homo sapiens, wise man, but wise we don't seem to be.
Terry Pratchett said that a better name for humans would be Pan narrans, "Story-telling Chimpanzee".
And by saying that, and a some other things, he himself can be called one of the few homo sapiens.
Same reason you can look at a sunset but not the noonday sun