But reliablilty in different areas correlate. Someone who is wrong about one thing is more likely to be wrong about other things, relative to someone who is right, in my experience.
(However, I bet you that there’d be a few cases where the people who believed the truth about something were less correct than average, like conspiracy theorists, who are right occasionally.)
But yeah. That article is really good; it pretty much discusses just what I’m talking about.
I agree. I was just trying to help come up with a way to find where that correlation breaks, or is countered by other external factors. A trivial example: A mormon dentist who is extremely irrational about religion, and yet exceedingly rational about tooth decay.
I like to think of myself as a protoBorg: I seek the strengths of other people, and add them to my own. Except since I’m much more bounded than they are, I often just make a note that if I am interested in increasing my uniqueness in the field of X, then I could start by talking to Person B.
“When assessing someone’s reliability, do you ignore the issue you seek >knowledge about?”
So getting back to that, I would say that instead of ignoring the issue, I try to see how the person fits in a network of subjects, and mark their reliability up or down in issues where they most closely touch the issue at hand. I still think of Person B as excellent with programming, history, current events, general knowledge. I just don’t trust his self-awareness as much as I did before discussing the Greater Deity’s nature with the heathen.
But reliablilty in different areas correlate. Someone who is wrong about one thing is more likely to be wrong about other things, relative to someone who is right, in my experience.
(However, I bet you that there’d be a few cases where the people who believed the truth about something were less correct than average, like conspiracy theorists, who are right occasionally.)
But yeah. That article is really good; it pretty much discusses just what I’m talking about.
I agree. I was just trying to help come up with a way to find where that correlation breaks, or is countered by other external factors. A trivial example: A mormon dentist who is extremely irrational about religion, and yet exceedingly rational about tooth decay.
I like to think of myself as a protoBorg: I seek the strengths of other people, and add them to my own. Except since I’m much more bounded than they are, I often just make a note that if I am interested in increasing my uniqueness in the field of X, then I could start by talking to Person B.
So getting back to that, I would say that instead of ignoring the issue, I try to see how the person fits in a network of subjects, and mark their reliability up or down in issues where they most closely touch the issue at hand. I still think of Person B as excellent with programming, history, current events, general knowledge. I just don’t trust his self-awareness as much as I did before discussing the Greater Deity’s nature with the heathen.