Gurus who give overly simplistic advice

Post Reply New Topic

Awesome idea!

Now, let's break it down a bit further. One thing I would do is to try to check the health of the hard drive first before doing anything. If I don't, I will be spending hours wasting my time. I've learned that through experience fixing my mother's computer when my mother was still alive.

Part of that $50 would be a diagnostic fee. $10 would be a diagnostic fee. $40 would be for the fix.

If it is a hard drive problem then I will help them look for a new hard drive and order one online. And, then I would tell them to find someone who can take it apart to fix it as I don't do hardware.

If it is not I would first back up their files by bringing an external drive with me. B/c more then likely they will need an OS reload if it is hosed by a virus.

Before that, I will do a virus and anti-spyware scan. And, I would do a defrag as well.

As an aside, let me tell you all what I had to do to fix my mom's computer one time.

I had to remove a virus. I was able to identify the name. Once I did I was not able to turn off the program in msconfig nor could I delete the files. Anti-virus scanners didn't work worth a damn on this nasty bugger. I went into the windows registry and was able to find all entries that had the name of that virus. I deleted them all. Of course, I backed up the registry first. Once I did that, I was able to turn it off using msconfig and then I deleted the program itself in the directory structure.

That's what people have to do to fix a computer.

It doesn't seem like it took all that much effort--except for the amount of deletions you had to do.

Complexity bias is the human tendency to look at something that is easy to understand, and view it as having many parts that are difficult to understand.  Much of this has to to with imagining all possible conditions or events that would inhibit or prevent a desired outcome.  Other is the need to over-define a simple situation to the point that only the situation could possibly exist.

When given the set "x = {1,2,3}" and told to make up a rule that would define the set, one Philosophy of Mathematics student came up with "Given the assumption that all number sets include the Null Set, one concludes that 'x' is equal to a triangular geometric arrangement consisting of 3 items at the bottom of a stack, with two more items on top of the three items, and one more item on top of the two items".  This student failed the test.

The correct answer was: "'x' is a set of three consecutive integers".

The problem is not "Gurus Who Give Overly-Simplistic Advice", but "Students Who Seek Overly-Complex Answers".

I recommend you the book: Principia Mathematica
By the way, this book is useful, just rather not for engineers.

It was required reading at university.

The whole?

All of it. Translated into modern English, of course.  The maths profs seemed to enjoy catching people who had not read it, or who at least had not read the essential parts.  I had virtually no social life, so what else could I do?

Can you imagine the work that Isaac Newton put into this book?

Combination 1

null
null, 1
null, 1, 2
null, 1, 2, 3

Combination 2.

((null, 1) (null, 2) (null, 3))

Combination 3.

((null, 1, 2) (null, 3))

Combination 4

((null, 1, null, 3) (null, 2))

Combination 5

((null, 2, null, 3) (null, 1))

.

.

.

Combination n

.

.

Combination n + 1

x is a set of all possible combination,permutation and (a,b location on the cartesian plane) arrangements plus 1 which include the individual member and subset of three consecutive integers.

a. The problem with what you say Fnord is that simple and complex are relative terms. What is simple to you may be complex to me.

b. Simple does not necessarily mean as least steps as possible. If I as the student understand the concept with 10 steps and you explain it in 5 steps and insist this is the right way and this right way makes no sense to me without the extra steps given what good is your simple to me? Simple presumes a certain amount of prerequisite understanding and the person understands the context and subtext implied.

c. Example: Is the definition of x in the problem you gave supposed to be based upon atomic answers like can't be reduced any further? I would call this set {1} as a member and subset of {1,2,3}. And, since it only has one member plus the null set then that is what I would call an atomic set since it can't be broken down any further. So, was the student supposed to define it as using only atomic sets in the set of x? More then likely, the student didn't have this part and it was just presumed by the professor.

d. There can be more then one answer to a given problem.

e. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... se-Fallacy

We can have the oversimplified cause fallacy as well. There is the human tendency to do this as well.



So, who's right here? Am I right? Is Fnord right? Are we both right? Or, are we both seeing different aspects of reality and truth just like I may see one side of an apple while Fnord sees another side. Why can't right and wrong answers be sliding scales and some answers are more right then others?

f. Now, if it is the case I'm constantly over-thinking the problems I have yet to be provided a method by any professional thus far that can show me how to think in a simplified way and how to come up with these simplified answers that others can seem to do naturally.

Kraftie, do you remember how I turned the phrase "Nothing is guaranteed in life" into a syllogism and got into an argument with a woman who was a mother as well in the parent's subforum? And, I was trying to prove that it made no sense. And, you realized that I should not have interpreted that phrase into a syllogism?

So, you understand how I think, where I'm coming from, and the issues I face? Correct?

My issue was that I was missing context and using syllogistic logic in an illogical way lol

See? You believe that the correct answer simply must be something other than what works. You’ve provided an overly-complex answer that is incorrect after the correct answer was already given. The problem is with YOU.

The thing is though is that you're not explaining anything at all. You're saying that's the correct answer without any kind of explanation as to why that is the correct answer and why the answer I gave and the answer I and the student gave is incorrect? If the issue is me and the issue is the other student then how are we both looking at it wrong?

Why was that the correct answer yet other answers are wrong?

And, what does it mean to work vs not work? How do we define that in terms of this given problem?

This is what I deal with on a constant basis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAqIJZeeXEc

All you are telling me is that Brawndo has electrolytes that make plants grow.

1. What are electrolytes?

2. How do electrolytes make plants grow?

And, you are like that woman who says brawndo has electrolytes that make plants grow.

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 19 Nov 2019, 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I confess that I am not an aficionado of syllogistic logic.

There are a few things that are, for the most part, "guaranteed" in life.

However, most things are not "guaranteed" in life. People have to make an effort to "guarantee" that they succeed in "guaranteeing" for themselves what is "not "guaranteed."

You had a difficult time fixing your mom's computer----but you did it. It took work. But you succeeded.

And your mother was glad that you made the effort for her.

I wish you had more of these experiences with fixing things for yourself, and fixing things for other people.

I'm not very good at fixing things myself----that is something that I should improve on. I wish I could be better at fixing things for myself and other people.

One thing that is awesome is you actually take time to understand where another person is coming from. You wear the other person's moccasins. You are good at understand a person's reasoning even if the reasoning is way off. You would be an excellent guru.

The gurus I speak of act arrogant and haughty, act as though there way is the only right way (and it may be), acts like it is simple and common sense and is affronted when asked questions even if the purpose is simply to understand it better. It's almost like these gurus get off with their superiority complex and acts like one is dumb b/c one is not getting what is obvious to the guru.

Kraftie, you'd be a cool dude to drink a beer with.

I do wonder what happened to the student Fnord was talking about. Was the student able to pass the class? Was the student able to understand the problem? Did the student eventually drop the course out of sheer frustration and futility? Did the professor see the student after class and go over it? Or, did the professor fob the student off?

What was the outcome? Where did the student go wrong in his/her thinking?