experts aren't

Not true, of course; one can confidently predict conservation of energy and nondecrease of entropy. Don't be scared by chaos, the mind is a capable tool, and lots of things make more sense after a nice nap...

Do not forget Walt Kelley's maxim: The definition of "expert" is "X" represents the unknown, a and spurt is a DRIP under pressure - thus "expert" means an unknown DRIP under pressure. --or was that Pogo?

If it's a government run operation, they're wrong 99.999% of the time, ultra reliably wrong IOW.

There's an awful lot of it about, despite what Mr. Slowman assumes.

NT

It's well known, old and unhelpful. There are experts around, but people like John Larkin don't like what experts tell them.

Only because the politicians tell them what them what to say. The UK version was that experts should be on tap, not on top.

_is_not/

swan

Dr Sloman doesn't assume much, and he does know a lot more than NT (which i sn't difficult to manage).

John Larkin's main beef is with climate experts, who don't share the point of view about anthropogenic global pushed in the Murdoch media.

John Larkin is a gullible sucker for every kind of denialist nonsense on th e subject, but his inflated idea of his own capacities prevents him from re cognising this all-to-obvious fact, and he has decided that climate experts aren't as expert as you'd expect widely published university staff to be.

This may make him feel better, but it does add an additional layer of stupi dity to what he posts on the subject.

gy_is_not/

k+swan

There are plenty. Their level of expertise covers the scale of course, henc e many are wrong. We're told as children to put experts on pedestals, and m any are unable to see past that. I've watched so many experts not even both ering to do the basic fact finding, and people making assumptions, false ar guments, not knowing their subject as well as they think and so on. The tru th is only a minority can navigate successfully through all those minefield s, and even when they do it still does not necessarily mean the conclusions are correct.

Slowman's simple insistence that all experts belong on pedestals is a bit a t odds with the world's total experience of experts so far. It reminds me o f IBM's claimed world need for 5 computers.

NT

junk snipped

It wouldn't be that bad, but for the fact that so many of the "Ken Rogoff level" forecasters are totally beholden to the likes of George Soros and will simply spout whatever rubbish they're paid (very well indeed) to spout. Prime recent examples being the dire consequences of a Brexit vote that never came to fruition and the equally dire consequences of electing Trump in the US. In both cases we were warned massive world-wide recession would result within days or weeks; some even predicted nuclear Armageddon. Of course it was all garbage intended to frighten voters into compliance with the wouldbe world controllers.

I don't read either of these worthless rags, you idiot. I used to take the FT only for years and years and years until it went downhill a while back and now I read *nothing* from the MSM at all. I consider myself very much better informed as a result.

That much at least is true. My news client has taken you out of my KF on the basis that it thinks you are now rehabilitated and should be given another chance. I've seen very little here that causes me to agree with that.

That is one, of very many, points that Taleb makes in his book: reading newspapers can make you less informed. Today's San Francisco Chronicle is atrocious.

Sloman is increasingly ossified in his ritual third-person insult mode, with rare but repeated references to unsuccessful 1970's electronic designs. Refresh that killfile entry.

I told my girlfriend (an English major) "You know, it's good to have people around who are willing to criticize and poke holes in the things you think are good. That's how you get better at stuff..."

She said "Well, I guess that's understandable. So long as the criticisms are constructive and it's not all hostile n stuff..."

And I'm like "Heh, heh heh, ha ha ha ha ha ha aahh."

Is it as packed-full of stereotypes as that page is? Because that page is...really packed full of a lot of stereotypes.

"Assign them to those happy to be paid by the hour" ah, maybe "happy to not starve by being paid by the hour" would be a more honest assessment.

It seems like a lot of rationalizations to the effect of "Yes, we don't make stuff anymore because the rest of the world is better at that, but we still sure have the best ideas, yes indeedy!"

Except I don't see a lot of evidence that being the "I don't know how to code but I want to be the ideas guy I've got some great ideas for a video game" person who turns up for an interview with Electronic Arts is going to get us very far, either. The rest of the world is plenty creative, and at the end of the day sheer creativity don't pay the bills, and the Third World is going to get fed up with cranking out Nikes sooner or later.

America: not really exceptional at anything anymore, except perhaps patting ourselves on the back and telling ourselves that it is so.

Maybe China will be able to save us from ourselves.

Group dynamics is really important here. People can brainstorm well, and design well, if everyone stays cheerful. I have a tendency to sometimes reject good ideas, and later figure out that they are good. I have to fight that.

But reasonably accurate.

Since that paragraph is about stereotypes, of course it's a stereotype. That guy is heavy into recursion.

There is a funny video circulating, where a person-of-color verbally and physically attacks a white boy for wearing dreadlocks, cultural appropriation. The attacker is speaking English, in a university dorm, wearing jeans and running shoes and likely panties and a bra, probably vaccinated and such, probably eats off plates with forks and knives, all cultural appropriation.

There is some value to not starving. Developed countries used to go to Japan for cheap labor. Now China is getting too expensive. Using cheap labor to build stuff feeds people and teaches them things, and then they are not so cheap. One more virtuous cycle of Capitalism.

I see you felt the need to just drop that in there, ostensibly in passing, following your advocacy of electric cars bringing your sexuality (or lack thereof) into question. :-D

Likewise with the (London) Times and the Wall Street Journal. Wonderfully informative, impartial and serious newspapers deserving of great respect and authority - until Murdoch got hold of them, that is. There doesn't seem to be anything he won't turn into a populist, lower-class mouthpiece for himself and his business interests.

Wise counsel I'm sure. But just out of curiosity as to how long it will take, I'm going to wait until he writes something outrageously unpalatable. I'm guessing I won't have to wait very long. At all.

Doesn't "gay" mean happy? Most gay people I know seem pretty happy.

Maybe if you weren't so angry, you could be happy, too! Because you can't be happy when you're angry. Sort of the anti-happy, if you will.

Please meditate carefully on these words of wisdom...

Yeah I had no idea it was going to snow all this weekend, it took me completely by surprise.