Quote from: Slarty1080 on 05/13/2018 03:30 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/13/2018 12:37 pmThe kind of amounts they could make from that might be useful to a couple of guys in a garage trying to get their first VC funding round, but to SpaceX it wouldn't be material.But they sell T shirts on their web site?That's marketing, not fundraising.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/13/2018 12:37 pmThe kind of amounts they could make from that might be useful to a couple of guys in a garage trying to get their first VC funding round, but to SpaceX it wouldn't be material.But they sell T shirts on their web site?
The kind of amounts they could make from that might be useful to a couple of guys in a garage trying to get their first VC funding round, but to SpaceX it wouldn't be material.
Quote from: launchwatcher on 05/13/2018 07:57 pmQuote from: Slarty1080 on 05/13/2018 03:30 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 05/13/2018 12:37 pmThe kind of amounts they could make from that might be useful to a couple of guys in a garage trying to get their first VC funding round, but to SpaceX it wouldn't be material.But they sell T shirts on their web site?That's marketing, not fundraising. Well why not sell rocket parts as marketing then?
Remember Boaty McBoatface...
No. No, no, no, no, and no. Also no.
People are typically overly optimistic when evaluating the quality of their performance on social and intellectual tasks. In particular, poor performers grossly overestimate their performances because their incompetence deprives them of the skills needed to recognize their deficits. Five studies demonstrated that poor performers lack insight into their shortcomings even in real world settings and when given incentives to be accurate. An additional meta-analysis showed that it was lack of insight into their own errors (and not mistaken assessments of their peers) that led to overly optimistic estimates among poor performers. Along the way, these studies ruled out recent alternative accounts that have been proposed to explain why poor performers hold such positive impressions of their performance.
...conclude that you are a functional expert (and have not designed and/or built functional tech with tiny margins more or less from scratch)...
For those of you that have not read any of the links/papers I've posted about the Dunning-Kruger effect (originally published in 1999), I'll copy the abstract of the 2008 replication and meta-analysis below. QuotePeople are typically overly optimistic when evaluating the quality of their performance on social and intellectual tasks. In particular, poor performers grossly overestimate their performances because their incompetence deprives them of the skills needed to recognize their deficits. Five studies demonstrated that poor performers lack insight into their shortcomings even in real world settings and when given incentives to be accurate. An additional meta-analysis showed that it was lack of insight into their own errors (and not mistaken assessments of their peers) that led to overly optimistic estimates among poor performers. Along the way, these studies ruled out recent alternative accounts that have been proposed to explain why poor performers hold such positive impressions of their performance.
Dunning-Kruger specifically applies to imcompetent, poor performers. While that might apply to some here, saying it applies to all seems like an unsupported generalization. Many of the posters here are quite successful in various technical fields. I've re-bolded your quote differently, to emphasize that DK applies to poor performers:Quote from: vaporcobra on 05/20/2018 08:57 pmFor those of you that have not read any of the links/papers I've posted about the Dunning-Kruger effect (originally published in 1999), I'll copy the abstract of the 2008 replication and meta-analysis below. QuotePeople are typically overly optimistic when evaluating the quality of their performance on social and intellectual tasks. In particular, poor performers grossly overestimate their performances because their incompetence deprives them of the skills needed to recognize their deficits. Five studies demonstrated that poor performers lack insight into their shortcomings even in real world settings and when given incentives to be accurate. An additional meta-analysis showed that it was lack of insight into their own errors (and not mistaken assessments of their peers) that led to overly optimistic estimates among poor performers. Along the way, these studies ruled out recent alternative accounts that have been proposed to explain why poor performers hold such positive impressions of their performance.If you are going to quote Dunning-Kruger, you also need to quote the opposite Imposter Syndrome. This is where people who are actually competent doubt their own ability. It can be defined as 'a feeling of “phoniness in people who believe that they are not intelligent, capable or creative despite evidence of high achievement.”' They ascribe their own success to luck, or people somehow overlooking their obvious flaws.Neither of these is a new observation. As Yeats said in 1919, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
I see your intent, but you are misapprehending their studies by extrapolating expertise somewhere to expertise everywhere. I can all but guarantee you that even the most expert of experts readily (and perhaps even more easily) suffer from Dunning-Kruger in areas outside of their expertise. One step further, being aware that one is an expert in certain subjects can effortlessly and unconsciously inflate self-confidence in ways that irrationally extend beyond the reaches of one's actual expertise. It's pretty easy to observe (very ironically) in terms of technical and engineering-minded folks' understandings of the humanities and social sciences more generally.
Quote from: vaporcobra on 05/22/2018 05:40 amI see your intent, but you are misapprehending their studies by extrapolating expertise somewhere to expertise everywhere. I can all but guarantee you that even the most expert of experts readily (and perhaps even more easily) suffer from Dunning-Kruger in areas outside of their expertise. One step further, being aware that one is an expert in certain subjects can effortlessly and unconsciously inflate self-confidence in ways that irrationally extend beyond the reaches of one's actual expertise. It's pretty easy to observe (very ironically) in terms of technical and engineering-minded folks' understandings of the humanities and social sciences more generally. I fully agree with you on your wider point. However its quite funny, given that you (and I take a guess here) are not an expert on the Dunning-Kruger effect, how do you know that your layman opinion that the Dunnning-Kruger effect is actually applicable is not suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect? A nice circular problem here Back to topic. In various interviews, Elon Musk and I guess also Gwynne Shotwell responded to the question "how to help SpaceX" with something along the lines: Talk to friends and politicians and make them aware that a spacefaring future and a Human occupation of Mars is a fight-worthy goal for our society. Why dont we take their advise and do just that, shell we?
probably no one outside of SpaceX is going to come up with a useful suggestion that SpaceX has not already considered.
Quote from: vaporcobra on 05/08/2018 11:26 pmNo. No, no, no, no, and no. Also no. I'd say yes, on these lines of evidence:a) Almost everything in rocketry was predicted by science fiction writers.
These were not experts, but came up with good ideas that were later implemented. Amateurs have the advantage of looking further out than engineers, who need to obsess about the problems of today.
c) An interested amateur and a professional are not as far apart as you might think. Lots of people on NSF have engineering degrees and/or decades of experience. If they joined SpaceX they could contribute right away. Their ideas are no worse from having originated from outside. See also recent math developments, where amateurs and unknowns have made significant strides.
Oh my god. Mods: please, please lock this unproductive and circular thread before I lose my last modicums of faith in humanity To anyone who genuinely believes that forums chatter (L2 or not) is a significant influence on companies on the envelope of technological systems development, please read this paper on the Dunning-Kruger Effect. And then read it a second, third, fourth, and fifth time. If, after five reads, you are still keen to conclude that you are a functional expert (and have not designed and/or built functional tech with tiny margins more or less from scratch), you are quite literally a dictionary definition of Dunning-Kruger. I'm not trying to be mean or to personally attack anyone. It's just a simple reality of human cognition that unless you assume you are layperson (as I personally do), you will inevitably wind up inflating personal perceptions of expertise. In all aspects of life (not simply being a spaceflight fan on forums), assume you know nothing until you have incontrovertible, empirical evidence showing otherwise. Do not assume - as many of you clearly do by arguing/implying that SpaceX actions and your forum comments are in any sense connected - that correlation has ANYTHING to do with causation unless you have direct, repeatable evidence. For those of you that have not read any of the links/papers I've posted about the Dunning-Kruger effect (originally published in 1999), I'll copy the abstract of the 2008 replication and meta-analysis below. QuotePeople are typically overly optimistic when evaluating the quality of their performance on social and intellectual tasks. In particular, poor performers grossly overestimate their performances because their incompetence deprives them of the skills needed to recognize their deficits. Five studies demonstrated that poor performers lack insight into their shortcomings even in real world settings and when given incentives to be accurate. An additional meta-analysis showed that it was lack of insight into their own errors (and not mistaken assessments of their peers) that led to overly optimistic estimates among poor performers. Along the way, these studies ruled out recent alternative accounts that have been proposed to explain why poor performers hold such positive impressions of their performance.Mods: I know this is only tangentially related to spaceflight, but it is explicitly related to this thread and to how users interact on public/private forums dedicated to technology. If you think this comment should be removed, I'd argue that the thread should commensurately be locked or removed.