Personal essays
Fond memories of ignorance
Panels
One of the staples at conferences are sessions featuring a panel of experts.
I remember the first time I was invited to be on one and my answer was, “no”.
This was a traveling Java conference and I was mainly an author and a journalist in those days. I hadn’t shipped any real apps and didn’t think I had anything to say.
The other panelists were pretty well known. I wanted to hear what they had to say - at least I thought I did. I couldn’t imagine anyone in the audience caring what I had to say.
“Don’t worry about it,” my friend Jason said, “they ask a question and they go down the line and ask us each what we think. Just say something that sounds impressive or say something funny. Act like you know what you’re talking about.”
There’s no room in those panels to say, “I don’t know.”
There’s no room to say, “that’s outside my area of expertise.”
Ask me about the
Blockchain, COVID, global warming, are hotdogs a sandwich - anything.
But, with the exception of that hotdog thing, I’m not really qualified. My opinion is built on listening to podcasts, a web search or two, and conversations with friends.
If I’m on a panel I should either say, “I don’t know” or “I’m the wrong person to ask about that.”
But that’s no fun.
It’s why I’m particular about which panels I say yes to and how I participate in them. By the way, it also means that I run some pretty great panels as I do a lot of work ahead of time to know which panelist knows what.
TV
Big time sports fans and commentators have a lot to fill their days.
Before the game they get to analyze and discuss what they expect to see at the game. Who will use what strategy, how successful this strategy (that they just made up) will be, and what’s wrong with that strategy (that they just made up).
Then there’s the game itself. I still enjoy that part.
Then there’s the post game analysis of the teams, the coach, the playing conditions, interaction between players, the refs, the coin toss, and the halftime show.
This formula varies for different sports but essentially is the same.
The amount of commentary on television, live streaming, or podcasts has greatly exceeded what there is to actually say.
I thought the benefit of podcasts over radio or streaming over boradcast is that if you only have ten minutes worth of things to say, then your show is only ten minutes. In live broadcasting you have to fill the entire show.
And so these past four days have been filled with content about the criminal indictment of our former president.
Commentary from the right has been that these charges are unfair and wrongly target someone for insignificant crimes when way more people over there have done way worse things.
Commentary from the left has been that these charges are important but maybe other charges from other places should have been brought first.
Commentary in the middle - and yes, I know there is no such thing so really it’s commentary that pretends to be in the middle - argues that people on both sides have done awful things and people on both sides have a point.
Here’s the thing. No one knows the charges any more than we know who’s going to win the a that will be played in the future.
In fact, we know less about the charges than we do about a game.
But there’s time to fill. And once someone has said something based on nothing, others can now discuss that unfounded statement and we build this house of speculation that we know is built on nothing and fill time and sell ads.
No one says, “I don’t know.” No one says, “I’m not really an expert in this area.”
They each say something that sounds impressive or they say something funny. They act as if they know what they’re talking about.
No one knows. It’s scheduled to be announced about an hour after I press send on this newsletter.
Everyone knows
We’re surrounded by people who provide commentary and opinions on demand.
They use the word research casually.
“I did a lot of research,” doesn’t mean they did a lot of research. It’s that web search they typed in earlier or the podcast they half listened to.
And we have to go out of our way not to consume their commentary on tv, podcasts, streaming media, and social media.
Even if we manage to avoid it, good luck avoiding our friends who want to tell us about this thing they saw or heard.
And “I did a lot of research” involves citations. You know who said what and you know what you’re depending on.
A step along the way to making everybody a panelist in this online show we’re engaged in is to demonize and question experts who actually did the work and know what they’re talking about.
When facts become your facts, then we can all have facts and we all become experts.
And this is the world that artificial intelligence is mining.
Like the panels and the posters, AI bots known not to say, “I don’t know” or “I’m not really an expert in this area.”
That’s no fun.
Essay from Dim Sum Thinking Newsletter 158. Read the rest of the Newsletter or subscribe