We know what we know. We don't know what we don't know. Our betters know things that we don't. We don't know that. Our inferiors don't know things that we do. We know that. So we know who doesn't know what we now, but we don't know who knows what we don't know. Simple.
-
-
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I can do that. Hold my beer...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nice Conan Doyle reference !
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
OH NO ~ judging others' competency itself requires competency? Jokes aside though, is it correlated with the judgers' own competencies in the field? Is this based on just their test scores or also relevant experience? I couldn't access the link in the original tweet.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Wrong populations for generalisable principles, though; chess-players, financial players etc tend to be cocksure, competitors rather than cooperators, & the sectors are male-dominated. If expertise was defined differently & women were the sample population wd results be the same?
-
I think they would. I take your point about the cocksure male bias, but the inability to recognize that which is beyond us is surely not down to gender.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
No shit Sherlock
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.