Quote:
Originally Posted by Bicycle Bob
Interesting diversion. I grew up thinking that a radical new idea only needed to be proven reasonably well and published to be accepted, like Relativity was. Now, I can't think of another great idea that didn't have to be sold almost as hard as a bad one. When John Cleese happens to meet someone who he thinks is very good at their profession, he asks them how many of their peers really understand it, rather than depending on what worked yesterday, and gets estimates from 5% to 20%, averaging around 12. Dunning-Kruger syndrome keeps the majority from knowing that they are actually floundering, or that some others are not.
|
Do you think institutions of knowledge used to have more fidelity, or do you think they were always as susceptible to corruption but lacked the speed of technology to spread as quickly?
Reminds me of the "grievance studies affair" where the gatekeepers of knowledge were tested with made up "science" that used preferred jargon and value systems, with a surprising acceptance rate.
I'm probably more susceptible to Dunning-Kruger than most, which is also why I throw my thoughts out to the public for scrutiny. My personality seeks the line, and then wonders what would happen with 1 more step.