
"Yes, but what are your credentials, Mr Stross?" - pavel_lishin
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/07/yes-but-what-are-your-credenti.html
======
MaxGabriel
Ah, this isn't actually a student writing an essay, this is a high school
policy debater. Their topic this year is space. If you aren't familiar with
this activity, it has some pretty outrageous elements--300 wpm speed-reading,
often surface-level analysis, and preference for gamesmanship over quality of
argumentation. But if you put the right kind of work into it, you do learn
alot.

The reason the student needs the source is that 'quals' are used to quickly
legitimize a person's argument. In policy debate, unrefuted arguments are
considered _true._ Thus, there's little time for intelligently evaluating what
a person is saying, as long as they have 'quals' and you can get to the next
piece of evidence ('cards'). The most outrageous argument from a PhD might be
preferred in debate over a rational argument from an intelligent person, like
Charlie Stross. edit: That's why he can't just say 'as Stross says...' like
the commenters suggest. As an example, this past year my debate topic was
mental health. I often cited Robert Whitaker, who is a finalist for the
Pulitzer prize for psychiatric journalism, was the former director of
publications at HMS, and has written two books on psychiatric medications.
Yet, because he did not have an MD or PhD, debaters sneered at his
qualifications, rather than evaluate his arguments.

I also find it highly likely that Stross's article is being used because of
this paragraph "Historically, crossing oceans and setting up farmsteads on new
lands conveniently stripped of indigenous inhabitants by disease has been a
cost-effective proposition. But the scale factor involved in space travel is
strongly counter-intuitive."

This is because debaters often don't respond to the other's policy
proposition, but rather _kritik_ their position by indicting the philosophical
ideas behind it. For example, an affirmative debater might advocate colonizing
a planet, and a negative debater could ignore this and talk about how the
affirmative is really based on white-power dominance of other cultures, and
thus they should lose.

My quals: debater in a different type of debate

~~~
nbashaw
I debated in High School and College. I don't think you're giving competitive
policy debate a fair treatment here.

On the surface it seems stupid to think that an un-refuted argument should be
considered true. But arguments are evaluated that way in policy debates for a
very specific reason -- the purpose of debate is not to discover the truth, it
is to win an argument. That's the whole point of the activity. If you don't
like it, you don't have to play.

That's actually the reason I quit during my sophomore year, but it doesn't
make debate a worthless activity. Nothing taught me to work harder or think
faster.

Debate is like working out. It's not real, so certain considerations go out
the window. Under your logic, running on a treadmill is a bad idea because
you're not actually going anywhere. But the point of debate isn't to discover
the truth, it's to sharpen your understanding and wit.

Where debate goes wrong is when you stay in it too long. After a certain point
the skills become harder and harder to transfer to other parts of your life.
And a lot of the people in it, as you might be able to imagine, are pretty
arrogant know-it-alls.

After I left debate, I had to re-socialize myself back into the world of
normal people who don't argue with each other all day for fun. It sounds like
I'm exaggerating, but all my friends were debaters and all my time was spent
researching, debating, or arguing with them about literally everything. That's
just how debaters tend to spend their free time.

~~~
enneff
> Under your logic, running on a treadmill is a bad idea because you're not
> actually going anywhere.

I find this style of debating tedious in the same way. Why run on a treadmill
when you can run outside?

~~~
jfoutz
1\. It's raining 2\. It's cold 3\. Poor air quality 4\. Running surfaces are
all paved 5\. Lack of water 6\. High temperature 7\. UV exposure 8\. Desire to
watch a movie much higher than desire to exercise. 9\. Required proximity to
person, for example taking care of a sick loved one. 10\. Uncertainty about
the amount of time available to run

~~~
enneff
A bunch of excuses but no really good reasons. Besides, my question was a
rhetorical response to a metaphorical device.

~~~
saurik
One might even say, it was a statement whose goal was to win an argument, and
not to uncover underlying truth? ;P

------
mechanical_fish
What is the difference between a fiction writer and a troll?

One of them spins fictional tales which, while based on enough facts to help
the reader suspend disbelief, are ultimately driven by the desire to create a
specific emotional effect. Every word is calculated, every character
(including the narrator) is designed with an eye toward eliciting a specific
response from the reader. A successful work invites the reader to collaborate
in the construction of a mental universe which is vivid enough that the reader
truly and deeply experiences the emotional state that the author is trying to
evoke. Of course, once the reader escapes the spell and gets a good night's
sleep, he or she usually recognizes that any similarity between the fictional
world and the actual world is likely to be purely coincidental... although
some works of fiction are so powerful that the reader's personality is forever
altered, only sometimes for the better.

Whereas the other one gets paid by a publisher.

So let me issue the usual warning: The reason we don't feed trolls is not just
to discourage them. Feeding trolls is unhealthy for _you_. They drag you away
from reality and (see xkcd/386) interfere with your sleep. We must be cautious
about trying to conclude _anything_ about the nature of education,
credentials, society, or _even the troll itself_ from the words of a troll, or
while under the immediate influence of the words of a troll. All we can
conclude is that we have buttons and those buttons can be pressed.

~~~
zeteo
After reading the article referenced, the author does sound kind of trollish.
E.g.

> in the hypothetical case of a planet-trashing catastrophe, we (who currently
> inhabit the surface of the Earth) are dead anyway. The future extinction of
> the human species cannot affect you if you are already dead: strictly
> speaking, it should be of no personal concern.

------
cstross
I'd like to just note here that _numpty@gmail.com_ isn't my correspondent's
real email address. (I wasn't expecting a blog entry to go viral, and didn't
check whether numpty@... is taken; it may be banned -- it's a mild insult --
but please don't go sending any mail that way on my account.)

~~~
mietek
Why not use numpty@example.com instead?

~~~
CamperBob
For the same reason why nothing kills suspension of disbelief in a movie like
someone dialing a number that contains "555."

------
Troll_Whisperer
Sadly, many if not most people seem to confuse schooling with education and
credentials with competence.

It's toxic in multiple ways. First is the assumption that those who have
learned on their own as Charlie has are incompetent. Worse still, is the
assumption that people with some certificate or degree automatically have
whatever technical/language/business/artistic skill their paper says they do.

In some cases, especially the hard sciences, the connection is strong. In
others, such as literature, it's hit and miss. In a few fields, such as
business or film, a PHD is probably a _negative_ indicator. Those headed for
the top get lured away before going that far with formalized training.

~~~
shadowfox
> Those headed for the top get lured away before going that far with
> formalized training

I am by no means someone "heading for the top" and maybe this was just an
oddity. But for me PhD was one of the most unstructured things I have ever
done. There was little that could be called "formalized training".

For most part you was left to your own devices. There were long to medium term
milestones that needed to be hit. But that was about it.

If you needed to learn something new for your work, you just did it on your
own using whatever learning methods suited you. Sometimes there were classes
that could help. But for the most part, by the time you are actually in to
your research, there wouldn't be many classes that are suitable for you
anyway. At least one of my lab mates lived the autodidact's dream ;) [Even me
to some extent, now that I think about it]

"Formality" was required only when writing out research. (This was technical
field; you need the precision)

Anyway just a note.

------
TomOfTTB
It's sad that we don't seem to train young people to assess ideas themselves
rather than trust in things like degrees (which can be meaningless depending
on the quality of the institution that issued them)

But I think there's a big caveat here in that "numpty@gmail.com" doesn't seem
like the sharpest tool in the shed. That sounds harsh but it is important
because stupid people tend to be more trusting in authority figures. For good
reason.

Evolutionarily speaking someone who is lacking intelligence is less likely to
survive and following someone who seems to excel in that area increases their
chance of survival greatly. Less than intelligent people being in positions of
authority seems like a relatively new development in human evolution since I'd
assume it stems from the transfer of wealth between generations (which wasn't
possible until technology gave us the ability to create and maintain assets of
some significance). So for most of human history a stupid person was better
off following an authority figure and I'm sure the instinct is still embedded
in people like this.

Which in turn makes him trust in meaningless pieces of paper that convey
authority rather than his own assessment of the ideas presented.

~~~
fleitz
Evolution doesn't say that at all, evolution predicts that the fittest for
their environment will survive. Given that the number of children one has is
inversely correlated with 'intelligence' it would seem that the stupid are
more fit to survive by nature of their willingness to pass on their genes.

Social Darwinism is not the mode of operation for industrialized nations so
it's debatable whether there are any significant evolutionary fitness
functions in place in the first world.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
Meta: It's always strange how few people question the dogma that evolution
influences _every last detail_ of human behavior.

But I wouldn't make that statement outright. It is heretical.

~~~
fleitz
Like most of science, rhetoricians rely on a poor understanding of what
evolution actually says to foster ideas that have no basis in any meaningful
scientific understanding of the topic, but seem to make common sense.

The funny thing about evolution and rhetoric is that evolution is usually used
to create acceptance for the policies that will make the fitness function a
reality. (eg. mutilating the reproductive organs of those who score low on IQ
tests)

------
econgeeker
I've noticed this form of anti-intellectualism is becoming more prominent in
recent years. It is almost as if people are being taught it.

When presented with an _argument_ that they cannot debate, people will demand
a "citation" or "credentials". In both cases, they are pretending like you
have made a logical fallacy.

Saying "I've got a degree in auto-body repair from West Alameda Tech,
therefore, java is a terrible language" is obviously pointless. You can see
how the degree has no bearing on computer science.

But if the degree _were_ in computer science, the argument would still be
argument from authority. But the debators then switch to debating whose degree
is better.

You find this a lot in political debates whereby somehow, politicians (who
often do not have very useful degrees, as they tend to be lawyers rather than
engineers or scientists) somewow are magically transmorgrified into
"authorities" on whatever subject they have an opinion about.

And you-- as an engineer, or scientist or economist, are expected to somehow
cite credentials that are superior to theirs.... as a politician? Any
credential would be superior to what amounts to being a paid liar, but of
course this is letting your debate opponent set the terms anyway, and thus
your PhD in computer science with Donald Knuth as your thesis advisor means
nothing compared to the authority of some ex-TV comedian who managed to parlay
that fame into a senate position.

Another variation of this is the demand for a "citation", invariably from
opponents whose citations, if you can drag one out of them, are to blog posts,
which are themselves essentially another variation of the argument from
authority.

The real problem here is, these are tactics whose effect, of not their
purpose, is to eliminate reasoning and thought from debate.

They are excuses to ignore the quality of an argument and thus ignore the need
to address that argument, or make a counter argument. Instead, they jump to
the position of arguing from a logical fallacy, which precludes from
possibility the idea that their opponent might be making a good, logical,
rational argument.

If you find yourself asking people for citations or for their credentials,
check to see if you've narrowed your objection to a particular fact, or if you
can argue against the logic they are using.

Otherwise, they should rightly consider you to have conceded by trying to move
the debate onto a false basis, where, _at best_ your position rests on a
logical fallacy.

------
Eliezer
I have generally replied to the question "What are your credentials?" with a
simple, confident, "None."

------
KevinMS
Although there are some standout exceptions the hacker community is obsessed
with credentials.

Most of the job listings I see, on a daily basis call for a computer science
degree, and its almost never qualified with (or equivalent experience).

This is a recent phenomenon and I have a feeling it has to do with the glut of
comp-sci graduates that got stuffed in the pipeline since the first dot com
bubble. Now they are mostly just hiring their own kind to perpetuate an
artificial scarcity and keep their value up.

I miss the days when I could work, and learn, alongside a motley crew of
developers from all kinds of backgrounds, and the cream, not the credentialed,
would rise to the top.

~~~
alnayyir
That is corporate jobs, not the hacker community. I don't have so much as a
single college credit to my name and the harvard educated CTO of my company
didn't even mention it when I got hired. Stop reading monster.com job posts
thinking it has anything to do with "hackers".

Hackers care about code, full stop.

~~~
KevinMS
Maybe SF is different, but I'm talking the Boston/Cambridge area, those are
not "corporate" companies. Just an amazing coincidence those companies are
mostly in college towns? I really wish you were right, but I'm not seeing it.

~~~
alnayyir
Boston/Cambridge is an academically oriented area, not as startup/private
sector focused. Of course MIT-land would be obsessed with credentials.

~~~
KevinMS
Boston/Cambridge _is_ startup land on the east coast. I'd say about 90% of the
job listings I see for startups or web companies are in boston or cambridge.
Bigger "more corporate" companies are situated around route 128.

~~~
alnayyir
YC disagrees.

~~~
KevinMS
YC disagrees with facts? I said "on the east coast"

<http://www.startuply.com/#/in%20massachusetts/1>

------
jodrellblank
I find these personal attacks in the form "you don't know what you're talking
about" all over the Internet, and highly annoying.

I'm not sure if that's a flaw with me, or with everyone else.

It seems entirely reasonable to engage with things one doesnt know about, and
writing being one valid way of doing so.

Mentally tag everything ever written as if the author had said "IMO" at the
end. Even people who do know what they are talking about can be wrong or
interpreted wrongly. This is almost a variant on the theme of proof by appeal
to authority.

~~~
Periodic
Almost everything on the internet should be prefixed by "IMO". That said, a
well-reasoned argument's correctness does not vary with author.

------
WokenWanderer
What I see: The student is either a troll or a detail-oriented, quick-to-anger
idiot. The student's first email is fairly polite and could result just from a
lack of internet search skills. But in the student's second email, the tone
completely changes--the student is deliberately attacking Stross and trying to
provoke him. Starting with the student's second email, I believe that the
student is not looking for a calm, thoughtful response from Stross anymore;
the student just wants Stross to admit that he is in the wrong.

------
makmanalp
This sort of reminds me of situations where people here comment on, say, legal
issues related to tech. Someone always comes up with the argument that the
poster doesn't know jack about the law, and they should shut up. That doesn't
mean we shouldn't have a rational argument about it.

------
ddemchuk
Regardless of whether or not credential requirements are founded, those are
some pretty dickhead email responses. Why cuss at someone asking a genuine
question?

Internet tough guys are so cool.

~~~
mestudent
To be honest the emails he got could have easily annoyed him and seem to have
come from someone who believes he is not interrupting into someones time
(especially after the first response which is reasonable for someone without
"citable" credentials).

I'd like to think he gets a large amount of emails a day and the fact that
this person wanted credentials but decided to email rather than research
further could have hit a nerve.

Just look so far as the final response shown:

> _I think that you shouldn't write articles under the mindset that you know
> what you're talking about..._

~~~
ddemchuk
sure, I admit the emailer went on to judge, but his initial email was:

> Hello, I'm citing your work for a debate article I'm using > about space
> colonization and how it is improbable. I do > need credentials however, and
> I've yet to find them online. > If you could reply with your credentials
> that'd be great.

No harm in that email, very simple.

But then the blogger went on to whip out his e-peen and tell the kid to go to
his wikipedia rather than just write "I'm a self taught novelist who
thoroughly researches his topics he writes about but doesn't have credentials
in the traditional sense".

EDIT: I apparently have no idea how to do quotes on HN despite my valiant
attempt to do so. I apologize.

~~~
ramchip
Regarding formatting: <http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc>

    
    
      Using two spaces indentation can work
    

_Italics also work._

~~~
ddemchuk
Thanks for that!

