If it was not Paul Graham this would never has made it to HN front page, but ok...
One of his point is that people should not talk about things they don't know about. So maybe he should start applying that to himself first (and maybe this to myself right now).
The question is, how do you define the threshold of expertise require before you start talking about a subject?
The concepts of truth, credibility, ethics, deontology that he vaguely puts the finger onto. Those are complex topics, still being studied and will be forever.
Blaming journalist and politics, why not, I guess some of them deserve it, but my neighbour could have done the same analysis after couple of pints at the pub.
No, his point was people shouldn't talk with _absolute confidence_ about things they don't know about.
Usually in everyday life we hint at our confidence level with the language we use: 'might', 'probably', etc. These people have trained themselves not to do that, which they previously have gotten away with.
As an immigrant, and I'm sure many foreigners would agree, this is extremely American.
People, gentile people, who use "might" and "probably" are weak intellectuals by American standards. They are cast aside, especially in media, because they cannot give definite answers. This is science and science doesn't sell.
Politicians and media types are sales-people.
This really depends on the family and milieu you grew up around and are engaged with generally in life.
This is actually career advice I was given as a kid by an engineer at a nuclear power plant: “don’t give the impression that you’re uncertain during discussions even if you are.” I remember thinking “isn’t it literally your job to be uncertain?” That really bothered me and I’m reasonably sure I wasn’t wrong to be bothered.
> Blaming journalist and politics, why not, I guess some of them deserve it, but my neighbour could have done the same analysis after couple of pints at the pub.
They absolutely deserve the blame more than your neighbor, because they have a power of influence ~10e6 times greater than your neighbor at the pub. They chose to use that influence to back a narrative to support their political inclinations amid an emergency. The responsible thing to have said is: "We don't know what the severity of this will be, but we'll report things as we find out from authorities."
What needs to be noted clearly here I think is that he says it's something more than Dunning Kruger overconfidence but rather an absolute con-man level gamble they are taking as they don't seem to have a downside on this bet. And I guess we have a perfect moment to start providing that downside.
The concepts of truth, credibility, ethics, deontology that he vaguely puts the finger onto. Those are complex topics, still being studied and will be forever.
Blaming journalist and politics, why not, I guess some of them deserve it, but my neighbour could have done the same analysis after couple of pints at the pub.