

Ask HN: How can I recognize when I don't know what I'm talking about? - spiffytech

Like most people on HN, I'm a pretty smart guy. Like most geeks and nerds, I have know a little bit about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things. There are plenty of topics I have minimal experience with, but have read enough about that I feel qualified to discuss, at least in a "contribute to the conversation" or "Basic Intro to Topic $FOO" kind of way.<p>The problem is I wind up in conversations where I think I know enough about a topic to talk about it, only to get called out by someone who knows I'm very wrong and can prove it. It's a normal part of life for this to happen sometimes, but I notice it happening too often as of late.<p>How can I recognize when I don't know what I'm talking about, before getting called out on it?<p>Edit: I'm humble enough to admit when I'm wrong, I just want to be wrong less often. Part of my problem is getting called out too often, but the other part is knowing when to keep quiet when I'm not around people who could correct me. I don't want to misinform my friends.
======
michaelkeenan
There's a distinction that I've seen people miss, which I'll describe by
example. Suppose you don't know Lisp, but you've seen many respectable people
such as Paul Graham and Steve Yegge describe how great Lisp is for
metaprogramming. This doesn't mean that you know the fact "Lisp => great for
metaprogramming"! What you know is the fact "Many respectable people think =>
'Lisp => great for metaprogramming'". This is an important distinction! It
means you probably shouldn't talk about Lisp and metaprogramming, and if you
do talk, you should make sure that you deliver the right fact, i.e. "I've
heard that Lisp is good for metaprogramming", not "Lisp is good for
metaprogramming".

> What I fear is looking incredible.

I'd rather that you fear _being_ incredible (which it appears you are).

A resource that helped me think much more precisely about what I know and the
level of confidence I have in that is the rationalist writings of Eliezer
Yudkowsky. You might like to check out the sequences:
<http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences>

When what you know differs from what is real, you have a problem where your
mental map does not match the actual territory. The most important sequence,
Map And Territory, addresses that:
[http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_Territory_%28sequence...](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_Territory_%28sequence%29)

I also recommend to you the Reductionism sequence:
<http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Reductionism_%28sequence%29>

How often do you say "I don't know"? I think Voltaire was on to something when
he wrote: "He must be very ignorant, for he answers every question he is
asked."

~~~
Eliezer
> _Suppose you don't know Lisp, but you've seen many respectable people such
> as Paul Graham and Steve Yegge describe how great Lisp is for
> metaprogramming. This doesn't mean that you know the fact "Lisp = > great
> for metaprogramming"! What you know is the fact "Many respectable people
> think => 'Lisp => great for metaprogramming'"._

An excellent distinction.

I think OP may be looking for
[http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Mysterious_Answers_to_Mysteri...](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Mysterious_Answers_to_Mysterious_Questions),
that's the one with e.g.
<http://lesswrong.com/lw/iq/guessing_the_teachers_password/>

------
dasht
I've experienced the same problem. I like to think its mostly fixed now. Here
are some things that worked for me:

Don't shy away from the ones that call you out, at least if they are giving
you friendly pokes rather than being mean. The way I talk (in casual
settings), I grew to like saying stuff like "What?!? Really?!? Oh!. I'm full
of s--- then!" The value of these people is that they help you learn to
recognize the internal cues of when you might be going off the rails. They can
probably sense it in your voice tone and body language before you even get the
bogus content fully out. You can learn to recognize that in yourself.

Do watch out if you're one of those (like many of us) who likes to talk a lot
about stuff we "know" and likes to talk excitedly and at length. Watch some
old cowboy movies that feature smart, strong silent-type heroes. If you don't
have one already, buy yourself a cowboy hat as a personal reminder.
(Substitute any similar character type for "cowboy" - your style choices are
yours.) If you feel like you just have to say every clever thing that pops
into your head in a conversation, work on not doing that - even for topics
about which your knowledge is definitely good. (As a side effect, this makes
conversations more interesting.)

Careful if, like many of us, you find it friendly and fun to tell people "Hah,
no, you're wrong there! Let me tell you...." Among some geeks/nerds, that
really is fun and playful. Among many people, it's not. It's also one of the
leading causes of spouting bogosity, studies have shown.

Remember that its just human nature, nothing new. What was it Mark Twain said?
Something like "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble but
what you know that just ain't so." Something like that, anyway. Close enough.

------
gregwebs
I use the advice of PG (which he observed from RTM)
<http://paulgraham.com/heroes.html>

    
    
        Don't say anything unless you're fairly sure of it. If you're not omniscient, you just don't end up saying much.
    
        ... the trick is to pay careful attention to how you qualify what you say.
    

Start qualifying everything. Eventually you will stop commenting on subjects
you don't know about when your qualification becomes: "well, I don't really
know anything about this, but..."

The other aspect of this is to dig deeper into subjects. People think they
know something about a topic because they read a couple of blog posts. Dig
deeper- look at primary sources. Look at citations. If there aren't citations
the statement is suspect, and you will qualify the knowledge as suspect when
it comes _into_ your brain, increasing your chances of qualifying when it
comes _out_ of your mouth.

~~~
binspace
> Start qualifying everything.

For some reason I find it annoying when people do that. For example I often
hear something like ("I don't know but, the library you are using is bloated
compared to library X").

I frequently catch myself saying "I don't know" in front of assertions I make.
This is an issue when talking to a less knowledgeable person, because the "I
don't know" puts the more knowledgeable person at an immediate disadvantage,
and lets the person with less knowledge have more of a say in how things
should be run.

I find better just to confidently state something, and get called out for
inaccuracies (it's certainly more memorable). Also think about what you said
at the end of the day. It's better to recognize and admit inaccuracies than to
hang onto your pride
([http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8...](http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=george+bush+never+wrong)).

~~~
gregwebs
"I don't know..." is not a real qualification. Qualifying things also means
working at doing _proper_ qualifications. "I read a comparison of library X
and Y a while ago that stated (qualification) library X is bloated to library
Y, so we should investigate that before making a decision as too which one to
use"

It is a great point that people don't qualify because it makes them sound less
confident, and people that sound more confident end up being more convincing
to most people. So there is a cultural problem there (hopefully confidence
does not sway a scientific group).

Cultural problems are tough- to maintain your stance you have to try to change
the culture (sometimes impossible) or move to a different culture. But you can
change the culture a little by asking "where did you read that?", or "so you
have used/did that yourself?". Obviously you have to do this in a way that
doesn't annoy.

You have to work at finding the middle road between qualifying and giving an
impression of relative confidence.

Let me qualify this by saying these are just what comes to my mind on this
issue. I would very much appreciate the pragmatic advice of others on this
concept.

~~~
binspace
> So there is a cultural problem there (hopefully confidence does not sway a
> scientific group)

Isn't this the norm though? Given all things equal, it's been my experience
that people who make quick and strong judgement tend to have more control over
a social situation.

Of course somebody who is wrong often will have less reputation. However,
being wrong is not always bad, especially if it leads to further thought and
exploration to find the truth and the person is willing to change one proven
wrong.

> It is a great point that people don't qualify because it makes them sound
> less confident, and people that sound more confident end up being more
> convincing to most people.

Your qualification about reading the comparison instill confidence on the rest
of the statement. Maybe it's the self-deprecating qualifications that should
be avoided...

> You have to work at finding the middle road between qualifying and giving an
> impression of relative confidence.

True.

\---

Some meta thoughts. I would have to expend lots of energy and time to be able
to properly qualify some of my statements. I find the time/accuracy trade-off
to skew toward time, here, with the hopes that a well educated and astute
crowd (such as HN commenters), can point any flaws or provide validation to my
statements.

------
sbaqai
This is not that big of a problem and I think to varying degrees, everyone
does it. Learn to spot when you do it more frequently. And for practice, make
a note when others do it as well. You'll learn to distinguish air-tight
arguments from sloppy ones. It also helps to use a mental filter to call
yourself out before anyone else can. Here are things that help me:

1/. State an argument. Then, take the opposite side - ask yourself, what are
the arguments people might have against my argument? What assumptions am I
making? Is what I am saying true in all cases or only under specific
circumstances?

2/. Reading Richard Feynman's Cargo Cult Science speech at Caltech helped:
<http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm>

3/. Two quotes from Charlie Munger (Warren Buffett's partner), that also act
like a filter:

 _"You are not entitled to an opinion unless you can state the arguments
against your opinion better than your opponents can."_

and from an interview:

 _Q: You've often said that one of the keys to your success has simply been to
avoid making the garden-variety mistakes that you see other people make.

Munger: Warren and I have skills that could easily be taught to other people.
One skill is knowing the edge of your own competency. It's not a competency if
you don't know the edge of it. And Warren and I are better at tuning out the
standard stupidities. We've left a lot of more talented and diligent people in
the dust, just by working hard at eliminating standard error._

------
dgabriel
First, in case you're wondering if you should just keep your trap shut, it's
ok to get called out once in a while. It can be embarrassing, but it's part of
every learning curve & it will make you smarter, so long as you listen and
handle it with grace. There is a lot to know in the world, and you won't be an
expert in much, but it's good to share the knowledge you have. It's good for
novice observers to see you called out and corrected, and for them to see you
reply with appropriate solicitousness.

Second, it's sometimes really hard to know. The best advice is to avoid
speaking with absolute authority, unless you have evidence in hand to back up
your shit. Even the experts get tripped up occasionally.

I guess my advice boils down to this: embrace being corrected because it means
your knowledge has just been expanded, and approach all topics with a modicum
of humility.

~~~
spiffytech
I love being corrected, because it's educational. What I fear is looking
incredible. Get corrected too often and people start to assume whatever you
say is probably wrong

------
d0m
I think you focus on the wrong problem. It is ok to be wrong and if someone
can prove it to you, be happy to have learn something new and thanks him/her.

Of course, to do that, you need to have an open mind and always act on the
safe side. Instead of saying: _"You stupid idiot, haskell is not purely
functional because there are monads"_ , you're better with _"I'm pretty sure
haskell..._ " or " _I think Haskell.._ ". This way, you encourage people that
might know more than you in that subject to speak and help you instead of
aggressively attacking them.

There's nothing wrong in being wrong. And to be honest, _I think_ it's the
only way to learn :o

------
projectileboy
I have the same problem, and so does my dad. My safety catch is to ask myself
if I could begin working on a project related to what I'm talking about. If
not, then I know I'm full of shit. It doesn't mean you have to stop talking;
you just have to let other people know that you're full of shit, and simply
making educated guesses.

------
dansingerman
Do you have a conception of the difference between stuff you "know" (i.e.
certain facts that you are sure are correct) and things you "believe to be the
case"?

If yes, are the things you get called out on stuff you had previously
categorized as stuff you "know"? If so, you need to think on the distinction
between the two.

If not, then, what I do is this: If I know something to be correct I am happy
to assert it. If I only believe it to be the case, I will caveat it with
something like "It is my current understanding that..." and make it clear that
I am not the font of all knowledge on the subject, and others may have a more
informed opinion.

You can mentally prefix this whole answer with a "It is my current
understanding that.."

------
betageek
I'm having this exact same problem with a colleague at the moment and my root
cause analysis is that he's not making the right judgement about the knowledge
level of the other conversation participants.

I would suggest trying to a) listen and b) gauge the level of experience of
the other guys in the conversation. If they have 'doing' knowledge that
automatically trumps your 'I read on the internet' knowledge so, yknow,
silence is golden - everyone has access to google...

------
msg
If you have the context to sit a level above the conversation and can see that
the issues being talked about are clearly peripheral, you know enough to
redirect the conversation to the core issues with a good question.

If you don't, you can ask clarifying questions until you do. Always focus on
what would help you decide one way or another.

If you get into a disagreement with someone and you can't resolve it in the
scope of the conversation, ask for a reference or data.

If you're in a conversation with an expert, you're the student. And that's ok.
We're all students of the world.

At the same time, don't be afraid of speaking too far ahead of your knowledge.
When someone calls you on it, you have a chance to learn.

Become a questioner.

The real problem is if you've been fronting and cracks appear in the facade.
Then people know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you've been acting small
and think less of you. The only cure is not to be a bullshitter. Don't pretend
you know what you don't.

There's a difference between pretending like you know it all and being forced
to act on imperfect information. The former is a character flaw, the latter is
just life happening.

------
SHOwnsYou
I think your friends may have just pegged you for a BSer and now anytime you
say something that doesn't sound right they are going to call you out on it,
even if they don't necessarily have the facts to back themselves up.

I like to infer. Read a little bit and then infer a lot from it. To reduce
being called out on something, explain how to jump from point A to point B.
This actually serves 2 purposes.

1) Reduce the chances of someone jumping on you because they think you are a
BSer based on your history of BSing.

2) Enhances your thought process because you become aware of errors in your
thought process when you are called out.

Ultimately #2 is most important. When you are called out or corrected, you
gain insight not simply in your own thinking process, but how the person in
your conversation thinks as well. Listening to your criticisms and
implementing them into your thought process to correct for them in the future
makes you seem way more credible and increases your ability to infer in the
future.

------
stewsnooze
You could try to only have contentious opinions on topics that you are sure
you are right about. On other topics take a listening role until you've heard
differing opinions. You could of course offer an opinion you may have as a
question:

What do you think of the opinion many people have..which is Do cats always
land on their feet...even when they've been buttered e.t.c.

~~~
Psyonic
Opinions are one thing, having your facts wrong is another.

------
todayiamme
The greatest thing about you is that at least you admit it.

As a nobody I think that the biggest sign people are venturing into areas
where they don't know what the hell they are talking about is when they start
using buzz words, technical terms and oft quoted stuff _a lot_. I think that
when people have thought a lot about something, or truly understood it they
tend to talk about it in their own words, and they don't talk about terms or
something arcane but concepts behind them. They take into context things that
just aren't at the surface, and then base their conversation on that.

This isn't a hard and fast rule though. As it varies with a lot of people, but
it is really useful for me as I have to turn to 3rd party sources to learn
stuff pretty often (a textbook or a teacher is a first and second part
resource. You know if you can trust them or not. Online help sources whereas
are another game altogether).

------
jsz0
It's good not to adopt strong opinions on things you don't know much about.
There are also lots of ways to drop in disclaimers about your (lack of)
knowledge so you can still have a good conversation. This results in more
learning and less arguing.

------
AmberShah
You can't, all you can do is be open and humble when you're wrong. When you
say something that turns out to be incorrect, don't get defensive or
extremely, apologetic - a simple "Oh, really. Interesting" will suffice and
move on. It can be difficult if the other person is extremely insecure and is
trying to shove it in your face that you were wrong, but so long as you
yourself are secure then you will be ok with being wrong. The smartest people
I know are also the most humble because they are open to new ideas and willing
to be wrong.

~~~
Psyonic
Yes, you can. Especially if you're not an expert, sometimes talking a bit
less, and listening more, is certainly a start to fixing this problem.

------
joeld42
Try to refute yourself mentally before you speak. If you can argue on both
sides of a topic, then you aren't really sure.

The best way to proceed when you're not sure is to ask the others. Don't say,
"The internet is made of turtles," instead say, "hey, I heard it's turtles all
the way down, do you know if that's true?" And listen. That's how you fill in
those gaps in your knowledge.

I live by the axiom, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool,
than to open your mouth and remove any doubt."

------
SkyMarshal
Every time you feel tempted to jump into a conversation with an assertion or
statement, first rephrase it as a question, then try to answer it.

That will give you an idea of whether you really know what you're talking
about. Then decide from there whether you can submit it as an assertion (yes
you do know what you're talking about) or as a question (maybe not as you
thought).

------
rmah
It's simple enough to fix. Just stop making assertions and ask questions
instead. Not only will you no longer have to worry about foot-in-mouth
disease, you will also be more liked! And yes, I know I just violated my own
advice.

------
greyfade
When words are many, transgression is inevitable. But he who keeps his peace
is wise.

Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to
say something.

------
bpourriahi
Presence.

~~~
Psyonic
Zen.

------
drivebyacct2
What? You're phrasing something that you don't actually know as a fact that
you know? That's called lying. You recognize it by learning to not lie and
deceive people as a child.

Not sure what else to tell you. If you're passing off knowledge you pulled out
your ass and are getting called on it, maybe you shouldn't do that. If it's
speculation or if you're trying to be helpful but don't know for sure, then
phrase it that way. Or if you can't take the criticism just keep your nose out
of it.

I don't understand where the disconnect is to be honest.

~~~
spiffytech
Speaking a mistruth and lying are not the same thing. I sometimes think I'm
telling the truth, but my facts are wrong. I'm not trying to deceive.

I'm not just pulling things out of my butt, either. For example, I spend a lot
of time researching new technologies, but rarely have the time to become
proficient with them. This is very similar to the kind of learning you may do
in a classroom; I've never made an electromagnet, but thanks to my physics
class I can tell you about them.

Sometimes I say something incorrect. Sometimes someone with more experience
disputes my claims and I don't have the knowledge and experience to rebut
them, or to know if they're really right.

Modern society is founded on feeding off of each other's knowledge and
experiences; if we all spoke only about what we knew very well, and first-
hand, we'd say all very little. I'm humble enough to admit when I'm wrong, but
I'm trying to be wrong less often. It makes me look incredible.

~~~
drivebyacct2
I guess I still don't understand what you're looking for as an answer.
Logically there are only a few paths to "be wrong less often".

1\. Become an expert in everything.

2\. Stop talking about the things that you're unsure of.

3\. Preface the things you're unsure of with "I'm unsure, but I think".

If you're worried about looking incredible (and not in the good connotation)
because you are saying too many things along the lines of "I think..." then
stop doing it or learn to be confident that your expertise in the places where
you have it will shine.

What others paths are there here for "be[ing] wrong less often"? Am I missing
some hidden deeper question at play here?

~~~
spiffytech
I do preface things I'm unsure of as you suggest, but sometimes I'm wrong
about things I am sure of. I'm trying to figure out whether this is a problem
with my definition of "sure of", whether I just need to do more research and
get more experience on topics in general before talking about them, or whether
there's some indication I may not know what I'm talking about that I just
haven't found yet.

I'm asking in the hopes that other people have solved this problem for
themselves, and could say how.

~~~
Twisol
I generally try to source everything I say, if it's beyond a certain amount of
common sense or complexity. Just the act of looking up sources before hitting
that button (and often in the middle of writing the post) help me catch most
of my mistakes. At least, I haven't been called out on a mistake very often.
If I can't source something, I usually clearly note that in some way.

~~~
Psyonic
I get the feeling he's more concerned about in person conversations, where
looking things up before you speak is not really feasible (yes, you have your
iPhone, but seriously...)

------
gizmomagico
Actually one of the most annoying aspects of HN is the people who comment on a
subject as if they were "laying down the law", even though they're wrong.
Speaking with a voice of authority when you don't actually _really know_ that
what you're saying is true could be called "spewing bullshit".

------
Charuru
I don't see being proven wrong as a very big deal. Say the wrong things, be
proven wrong, and now you know.

Way easier than to second guess yourself every turn.

In startups we talk about failure as an important part of the learning
experience, so it applies to life in general too.

~~~
Psyonic
I have to partially disagree. While I definitely don't think you should second
guess your every turn, it's probably good not to go repeating things
(especially unusual things) until you've at least tried to verify them. That's
where urban legends come from, and its part of why its so hard to actually get
the truth out. It gets lost in so much noise.

