The horrifying importance of domain knowledge

NancyLebovitz

There are some long lists of false beliefs that programmers hold. isn't because programmers are especially likely to be more wrong than anyone else, it's just that programming offers a better opportunity than most people get to find out how incomplete their model of the world is.

I'm posting about this here, not just because this information has a decent chance of being both entertaining and useful, but because LWers try to figure things out from relatively simple principles-- who knows what simplifying assumptions might be tripping us up?

The classic (and I think the first) was about names. There have been a few more lists created since then.

Time. And time zones. Crowd-sourced time errors.

Addresses. Possibly more about addresses. I haven't compared the lists.

Gender. This is so short I assume it's seriously incomplete.

Networks. Weirdly, there is no list of falsehoods programmers believe about html (or at least a fast search didn't turn anything up). Don't trust the words in the url.

Distributed computing Build systems.

Poem about character conversion.

I got started on the subject because of this about testing your code, which was posted by Andrew Ducker.

The classic (and I think the first) was about names. There have been a few more lists created since then.

Time. And time zones. Crowd-sourced time errors.

Addresses. Possibly more about addresses. I haven't compared the lists.

Gender. This is so short I assume it's seriously incomplete.

Networks. Weirdly, there is no list of falsehoods programmers believe about html (or at least a fast search didn't turn anything up). Don't trust the words in the url.

Distributed computing Build systems.

Poem about character conversion.

I got started on the subject because of this about testing your code, which was posted by Andrew Ducker.

I see none of the characteristic tropes of the SJ movement (anything a member of an Oppressed Group says about their situation must be accepted unquestioningly

You don't need to be neoreactionary to not agree with that claim. I would guess >75% of the public don't agree with that claim.

take for granted that black people are less intelligent than white people and women less intelligent than men

I don't think anybody here argued lately that the average woman is less intelligent than the average man. I also doubt that's standard nrx.

Comments that (explicitly) even contemplate the possibility that the social conservatives might be wrong on this stuff get lots of disagreement

It's quite easy to get lots of disagreement on LW by saying things about IQ that are not in line with the academic research about the subject. Quite a few people on LW actually read relevant research papers. Don't confuse pro-science with nrx.

On the other hand I haven't seen strong disagreement with people who question whether "homosexuality is a deviance that should be worked against".

Opinion that are by the admission of the author not well thought out deserve to be challenged. If you don't challenge badly thought out opinions on charged topics you don't get high quality discourse.

I don't think anybody here argued lately that the average woman is less intelligent than the average man.

Given how different the distributions are, it's hard to say (and not very meaningful) which has the higher average. It might even depend on which average you use.

0gjm11y

Of course! I wasn't saying that everyone on LW is neoreactionary. I was saying (1) I don't see SJ-isms and (2) I do see NRx-isms. [...] In the lengthy discussion that started from this comment, there were a number of people (who were not all VoiceOfRa, though one of them was with a different username) arguing that it's credible that rating a prospective employee's likely competence much higher if the name on the application is John rather than Jennifer (with no other differences) is not evidence of prejudice, because being named John rather than Jennifer could be good evidence of a substantial difference in competence (even given the other information in the application indicating equal ability). I don't know how to interpret that other than as men being more competent than women. (Not quite the same thing as intelligence but closely related. The job in question was as a lab manager in a university science department.) And, guess what?, VoiceOfRa (operating at that time under the name of Azathoth123) was in fact saying in so many words that women are less intelligent than men. (Not, however, simply taking it for granted that everyone knows they are, so my description above isn't perfectly accurate. Sorry.) [...] Don't worry; I'm not. [...] I agree (with the caveat that if the author admits they're not well thought out, then "challenge" isn't exactly what's called for -- the author already knows they might be wrong -- but something more like analysis and critique) but I think you may be misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying "waaaah, leftist comments get challenged". I'm saying "moderately leftist comments get sharp disagreement and downvotes; immoderately rightist comments get less disagreement and fewer downvotes; therefore it doesn't seem right to categorize LW as a place where 'the left is the aggressor'". So, in particular, I was not and am not saying (1) that it's bad that "progressive" comments get challenged, nor (2) that it's bad that they get do

24

The horrifying importance of domain knowledge

24

24

24

The horrifying importance of domain knowledge

24

24