thats what bots do anyways on reddit.
Twitter user discovers Cunningham’s Law. More at 11.
(This, by the way, is one of the main engines behind massive collaborations like Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, etc. By pointing out that the Twitter user failed to mention the Law, I’m arguably falling prey to it right now.)
This is also what drives like 90% of scientific research.
Many see a study published and think: ." No, I don’t think that’s how it works. I’m going to do my own study and prove them wrong. "
Scientists are all just petty know-it-alls.
Pettiness can be used productively. There is a right place for every type of person. 🙃
The study I read said that only about 37% of scientists are petty know-it-alls, 60% are waiting for funding, 2% are waiting on peer review, and 1% are actively doing research.
They then said there was a 82% margin of error and a bunch of overlap in the groups, so you probably shouldn’t cite their research even though they published it.
😅
Yup, that’s just Murphy’s Law.
No that’s not Murphy’s… oh you sly son of a bitch. Almost got me!
You are correct. It is Occam.
I thought it was checkhovs gun?
Wasn’t it the Benjamin Franklin effect?
The real truth is that people don’t want to be that first person that answers, because THEIR answer will be torn apart.
I disagree. It’s more like the bystander effect than anything. If I ask a question right now and you see it, unless you’re especially passionate or sympathetic or unless the answer is trivial, you probably have better things to do, feel someone else could answer better, think I can probably figure it out myself, etc. Core point being that you’re faceless in a crowd of people who could also potentially help by answering.
Misinformation, on the other hand, triggers an emotional response that gets you personally hooked into the discussion – at least moreso than the initial question likely would’ve. Someone else has stepped out of the faceless crowd of bystanders and fucked it up, and suddenly you feel like less of a bystander.
Source: personal experience in large, collaborative projects. “Someone else will get it” is almost reflexive for unfinished work, but when I see direct misinformation, it feels like my job to correct it. I’m not afraid in the former case that my work will be lambasted; I’m afraid I simply don’t give enough of a shit to try.
Also a little Dunning-Kruger effect: “I don’t know enough of this topic to answer completely” vs “I know more than the existing answers”
What’s the inverse Dunning-Kruger where you’re asking for help as a novice but someone thinks you’re implying you know more than you do? That shit happened to me once and I’m still salty. I literally said I was a novice looking for help and they had the audacity to imply I was on mount stupid. Like my brother in Christ I would not be saying I am a beginner looking for help if I was over estimating my abilities and thinking I was an expert.
That makes good sense; sometimes you have an unrealistic expectation for the quality of answers, and seeing the mediocre reality grounds you.
That leads into another idea: checking a candidate solution’s correctness is normally much easier than finding the solution. Computational complexity theory shows this rigorously with more formalized problems. So given a wrong answer, you have a much easier gateway from which to fall into the problem. (I’ve had this happen really badly at least once.)
Hmm, for me I actually do have a lot of time to help people. But what happens is, if you make a suggestion you will so often be shot down by someone that thinks their opinion is fact. It’s the arguing for my point that I don’t have time for.
The effect is the same as bystander effect, because yes. I look at the question, know I could answer it, don’t want to get into the argument that someone else thinks their way is better, so I just assume someone else will take it on.
There’s a software dev parallel… tell an engineer “it can’t be done.”
And this is how reddit AI gets its training
Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.
Um, actually…
