h a l f b a k e r y
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
||If economic inflation got bad enough it would cancel out
Moore's Law in financial terms, so if there's a way of linking
comparisons to Hitler with hyperinflation, Godwin's and
Moore's Laws would antagonise each other.
||Can we get Rule 34 in here too somehow?
||And Parkinson's Law? (work expands so as to fill the
time available for its completion)
And Hippo's Law? (any internet debate between two
people on a subject where they have opposing
strongly-held views will result in these views being
strengthened rather than weakened)
||What about the Peter Principle?
||And my favourite, the DunningKruger effect (see
||Maybe someone who knows nothing about the Dunning-
Kruger Effect should have a go at coming up with this law.
I'm sure they'd find it easy.
||I take serious issue with the Dunning Kruger thing. For one,
it isn't really much of a statement about people
overestimating their ability. It was inspired by a case
featuring an idiot. This isn't really related to ability,
although often the two situations accompany each other. I
also think that it is a particularly weak point in a few other
aspects. Firstly, that estimation of ability and expression of
ability rarely track at all. So what? The reasons why are
highly diverse, and I would suspect mostly to do with other
people, not the person under study. I also would suggest
that there's a more complex non-linear temporal aspect
that is being ignored in the methodology.
||For example, if someone is learning to do a thing, or study
a topic*, they must estimate that their ability and (a
separate thing) their understanding to be incomplete - a
beginner - a newbie or neophyte. But - and it's a wide but -
they shouldn't simply assume they know nothing, or they
won't progress at all. It'd be the same as assessing their
competence in a totally irrelevant unrelated topic they
have no interest in or no inclination to look into. Why
would you go forward and learn anything about it other
than as a piece of trivia? A person needs to feel that they
might have something about them that makes them
somewhat good at it (even if it is .1%), or you wouldn't
even sign up for it in the first place. As learning or
experience or practice progresses, I think it is of value to
overestimate the ability to avoid being disheartened. This
should continue throughout a big majority of the learning
journey. It is only when you get to a stage where you are
quite confident in a topic that you realise how shit you
actually are and how little you really know compared to
what there is to know out there. If people had a linear 1:1
relationship of their progress vs reality, they'd give up - and
keep on giving up.
||The time aspect is complex, not just a case of 'fake it till
you make it', but this leapfrogging of pretending vs
understanding is certainly one part of it.
||Another aspect is how you interact with others out there.
For a very long time when I was learning programming, I
was the only one I knew that had the slightest
understanding of how a microprocessor worked and what an
instruction set is. I thought I was fairly okay at it, I knew I
was not 'there' yet, because it was so difficult and there
was a lot I didn't understand. It wasn't until much later that
I realised that there were people around that were much
faster than I was at implementing a solution - they could do
things in an afternoon that had taken me three years. And
theirs worked! But, in comparison with those around me,
family, friends, everyone at art college, I was really up
there at the top. So, other people dramatically change an
internal assessment of competence. (In retrospect, if I
knew I was so inefficient, I should have stopped trying to
program altogether much sooner (or eradicated all those
who were better) (whichever is easier)).
||But the static study of assessment of competence only
takes into account a snapshot of time and not an evaluation
of any kind of journey, if indeed there is one - it makes a
significant difference if there is.
||*(other chocolate bars are available).
||How about the "Halfbakery Law of Egocentricity", which states that any thread on the halfbakery will eventually become a discussion revolving around Ian Tindale ?
||Works for me, but I'd suggest renaming it slightly - take out
the 'halfbakery' bit and instead put in 'Ian Tindale'.
||Many people must have had the experience that at the
start of learning about a particular subject area they
wonder what there can possibly be to know about such
an apparently simple and straightforward topic, and then
have learnt and come to realise that there's a lot more to
it than they thought.
||On the other hand, I really feel a completely ignorant
chess player could so befuddle a grandmaster by their
baffling incompetence that the former could lead the
latter to concede the game. There's also overthinking
and getting bogged down in details, and also the possibly
non-existent phenomenon of an intoxicated individual
passing through a charmed period where they unwittingly
place themselves in danger and survive. I remember
once when I was drunk, I was better at snooker than I
had been sober, and I was demonstrably more fluent in
German when I've been drunk. So, I don't know.
||Also, there are specialisms, and I'm just wondering if
those specialisms would repeat any Dunning-Kruger Effect
that might exist, and if so, how about every stage of
learning repeating Dunning-Kruger, in which case where is
it and how would it operate? So, for example you're a
nurse, say, and the medicine (which isn't to imply that
nurses are merely second-class doctors) you learn seems
simple, then you do a degree in medicine and realise
there's more to it, then you become a brain surgeon, and
then you specialise in a particular kind of brain surgery - I
don't know what that would be because of Dunning-
Kruger. But, at each stage, do you go through a cycle of
expecting it to be simpler than it turns out to be? Do you
end up learning that it isn't?
||I also feel partly responsible for making this idea veer
rapidly off-topic, for which I apologise.
||//making this idea veer rapidly off-topic// - I
wouldn't say that it veered *rapidly* off-topic. To
me, the progress towards something unrelated seemed
fairly steady and nicely-paced. If there was a
universally-agreed measure of topic-adherence it
would be possible to construct metrics to show this
visually alongside the annotation stream.
||I'd estimate that it is supposed to be exponential, and not
linear. The veering off topic would never be linear or
nobody would notice. If it isn't exponential, or anti-
logarithmic, it is probably tangential.
||Several times I've thought about posting an idea about a
function which returns the value of off-topic tangent for
annotations on here but I've never managed to express it
clearly enough. I suppose what you could do is...
||Fully support renaming the halfbakery Ian Tindale and for the sake of consistency renaming [half] [Ian] and [quarterbaker] [quartertindale] and so on and so forth and any objection as to utility or common sensnosity of an idea is met with "B-b-but this is the I a n T i n d a l e"
||I think also that it as also in every sense a worthwhile use of the Ian Tindale to attempt to syncrete a single universal law by which all of life o all messageboard conversations (whichever is more important) can be governed and therefore also predicted. The Ur text of internet blather. We can make it here and render the rest of the web obsolete.
||Is there a condition known as The Trump-Dunning-Kruger
This is where you dye your head orange in the confused
belief that lemons make you invisible to fake news
cameras, only you are also too thick to know the difference
between an orange and a lemon?
||How come there's never been a HB schism, with over-gruntled party starting 'The Real Halfbakery', for all right-thing people?
||There are two bakeries! Are you only in one of them?
||Presumably there's an Otherhalfbakery, which comprises a
forum for people whose partners discuss their partners'
addiction to an ideas bank.
||[Ian] could always change his name to Half Bakery.