So I think there’s an epistemic model that people in this community often strive for. It’s that competence in one area does not translate much to others. Lack of knowledge in one area does not indicate a general lack of knowledge. Under this model, it’s relatively safe to display your lack of knowledge in public.
There’s a contrasting set of assumptions as well. It’s the idea that demonstrable lack of knowledge in one area indicates a general lack of knowledge. Expertise in one area indicates general expertise. Under this model, it’s unsafe to display any areas in which you lack knowledge, even if you couch it in “epistemic status” disclaimers, lest your credibility in areas where you really do know what you’re talking about be compromised.
I try to judge other people by the first standard, but I fear that others will judge me by the second. Hence the concern, and the reason why epistemic status disclaimers don’t do much to alleviate it.
There’s a contrasting set of assumptions as well. It’s the idea that demonstrable lack of knowledge in one area indicates a general lack of knowledge.
Hm, I think it depends on the specifics. I strongly disagree with it, but I can see people thinking something like, “Oh, you don’t know what a derivative is? That’s a pretty basic thing. You must not be very smart.” But for something else, eg. a monoid, it’s obscure enough where I don’t think anyone would penalize you.
Personally, I have a reasonably strong impression that LessWrongers are generally wise enough to not judge you for not knowing something “basic” like a derivative. But that’s just my data point.
I try to judge other people by the first standard, but I fear that others will judge me by the second. Hence the concern, and the reason why epistemic status disclaimers don’t do much to alleviate it.
I’m curious, what happens emotionally when you focus on the benefits of writing subpar content? I’m thinking of the points I made in Writing to Think, namely that writing is a great way to become a better thinker. “This is going to make me look stupid now, but it’s also going to make me stronger in the long run.”
YUSSS!
So I think there’s an epistemic model that people in this community often strive for. It’s that competence in one area does not translate much to others. Lack of knowledge in one area does not indicate a general lack of knowledge. Under this model, it’s relatively safe to display your lack of knowledge in public.
There’s a contrasting set of assumptions as well. It’s the idea that demonstrable lack of knowledge in one area indicates a general lack of knowledge. Expertise in one area indicates general expertise. Under this model, it’s unsafe to display any areas in which you lack knowledge, even if you couch it in “epistemic status” disclaimers, lest your credibility in areas where you really do know what you’re talking about be compromised.
I try to judge other people by the first standard, but I fear that others will judge me by the second. Hence the concern, and the reason why epistemic status disclaimers don’t do much to alleviate it.
Hm, I think it depends on the specifics. I strongly disagree with it, but I can see people thinking something like, “Oh, you don’t know what a derivative is? That’s a pretty basic thing. You must not be very smart.” But for something else, eg. a monoid, it’s obscure enough where I don’t think anyone would penalize you.
Personally, I have a reasonably strong impression that LessWrongers are generally wise enough to not judge you for not knowing something “basic” like a derivative. But that’s just my data point.
I’m curious, what happens emotionally when you focus on the benefits of writing subpar content? I’m thinking of the points I made in Writing to Think, namely that writing is a great way to become a better thinker. “This is going to make me look stupid now, but it’s also going to make me stronger in the long run.”