Experts undoubtedly agree on many points. The fact that they have differing opinions—and indeed should have them—is part of their craft, something on which they are in complete agreement, regardless of the field in question.
Here's an example: A craftsman knows what a nail is, but how, when, and whether it should be hammered in is a matter of judgment.
Edit: To put it more clearly: Someone who doesn't know what a nail is has no say in whether it's a good decision to use one.
That’s not to say that the opinions of laypeople don’t matter, since they may very well be affected by the issue. My point is simply that nothing is less productive than someone trying to tell a craftsman how to do his job without having even the slightest clue about the subject.
In this analogy, imagine a client who hires craftsmen and stands behind them the whole time, offering his uninformed opinions on everything they do—that only shows a lack of respect for the work of experts; it’s absolutely counterproductive.
It would make much more sense to clearly state what you want and simply let people do their jobs.
Quick match pits some number of players of random experience and playtime against one another. You’re just as likely to find someone who has memorized the full playbook as a newborn who fiddled with the controller.
OP is upset that this random mishmash of people didn’t listen to him, and is attempting to extend the premise society-wide. And it sorta works
12 replies
All experts agree on all things which is why it's so easy to know what's correct and incorrect.
No they don’t!
In those cases, I'm the tiebreaker.
Nonsense, they don’t even wear ties! They’re scientists, not hedge fund managers!
Experts undoubtedly agree on many points. The fact that they have differing opinions—and indeed should have them—is part of their craft, something on which they are in complete agreement, regardless of the field in question.
Here's an example: A craftsman knows what a nail is, but how, when, and whether it should be hammered in is a matter of judgment.
Edit: To put it more clearly: Someone who doesn't know what a nail is has no say in whether it's a good decision to use one.
That’s not to say that the opinions of laypeople don’t matter, since they may very well be affected by the issue. My point is simply that nothing is less productive than someone trying to tell a craftsman how to do his job without having even the slightest clue about the subject.
In this analogy, imagine a client who hires craftsmen and stands behind them the whole time, offering his uninformed opinions on everything they do—that only shows a lack of respect for the work of experts; it’s absolutely counterproductive.
It would make much more sense to clearly state what you want and simply let people do their jobs.
How: with a hammer.
When: as it’s needed, not subjective.
Wheter: redundant, repetitive, covered by when.
My fault: I had assumed that the people at Lemmy were capable of thinking abstractly.
I've added an edit that might make it clearer.
Chillllllll
Okay buddy.
You’re better off using the “9 out of 10 dentists agree” analogy I think.
I don't follow.
Quick match pits some number of players of random experience and playtime against one another. You’re just as likely to find someone who has memorized the full playbook as a newborn who fiddled with the controller.
OP is upset that this random mishmash of people didn’t listen to him, and is attempting to extend the premise society-wide. And it sorta works
and everyone takes everything to seriously.