Iknow It When Isee It

This is a frustrating debate pattern that I have encountered too many times. I ask for a "clear" definition, but never get one after probing and prodding. In the end, the other party simply says something akin to, "I know an X when I see an X and that's good enough. If you were smart/informed/educated/skilled like me, you would also just recognize it". It's a form of ArgumentFromAuthority that should NOT be acceptable, or at least not your primary evidence or definition source. The reader cannot do anything with such information, beyond noting that you have claimed yourself as an authority.

I consider it a disrespect of precision when presented as your primary source of evidence. If it's an objective trait, it should have objective and printable rules/algorithms/formulas for recognizing/identifying the trait's existence or absence.

I will agree there is pattern recognition where certain labels or categories are associated with certain patterns one encounters. Colloquial definitions can definitely rely on such. But again, it's not very useful for communicating unless one teases out the patterns into something presentable to others. At first "I know a cat when I see it but cannot convert it into a written algorithm" is understandable. But usually if one ponders a while and compares their thought process when identifying non-cats, they can start to tease out relevant patterns, such as "cats have pointy, triangular ears and a head that's almost round, with a slight bulge around the nose and mouth". Using this description, one could mistake a Chihuahua for a cat. But, further comparison may produce a rough ratio of ear length to head size that helps distinguish them. The describable model gets better with time as it's tested and refined. -t

"In the end, the other party simply says something akin to, "I know an X when I see an X and that's good enough."

That's not what the "other party" says, except perhaps in exasperation after explaining X to you in numerous ways. Notably, people here expend enormous effort trying to explain X to you, with no benefit to us. We -- and by "we", I mean everyone who tangles with you here -- appear to have no difficulty identifying and/or using X. Why do you?

Because they either accept vagueness as a satisfactory state, or mistake their (unprintable) head model for a universal truth and I'm the only one pesky enough to challenge them on it on this wiki. Note that two or more WikiZens may agree that they can recognize types when they see them, for example, and even agree on certain common examples as being "types", but that does not necessarily mean the concept is clear. For one, it could simply be historical pattern matching. Related: TopsTypeDeterminatorChallenge. --top

Have you considered the possibility that the misunderstandings may be entirely your own?

If not, how do you know?

I've asked many times, turn your claims into formal proofs where the obvious irrefutable logic stares me strait in the face. ItemizedClearLogic. Your aspergers ego allows your fuzzy side to lie to you.

You haven't answered my questions.

If you mean, "Have you considered the possibility that...", see bottom parts of UnskilledAndUnawareOfIt. Truly smart and wise people make objective arguments that can be verified externally. Self-liars make claims that suggest their head is above the scrutiny of empirical science. If you slap me around with objective logic enough, I might indeed conclude I'm out of my league in terms of practical issues. So far my detractors make excuses to avoid empirical scrutiny. They measure their fav tools against an evasive force in their head (ArgumentByElegance), not the factors of economic reality of the real world that most owners care about. For example, their fire-all-ordinary-programmers-and-hire-lisp-wizzes has failed the IfFooIsSoGreatHowComeYouAreNotRich test, yet they cling to it. -t

Be that as it may, you still haven't answered my questions. Note that English-language definitions (which, I presume, is what are subject to IknowItWhenIseeIt) are not well-formed formulas in a formal language, hence formal proof does not apply.

Sorry, label your questions. We have a reference problem here.

I shall repeat them:

Have you considered the possibility that the misunderstandings may be entirely your own?

If not, how do you know?

Of course I have.

And what did you conclude?

From an objective standpoint, I'm perfectly fine. There's certain trivia I don't know much about, but it's not my job to turn that trivia into empirical measurable evidence (RaceTheDamnedCar).

How do you know, objectively, that you're perfectly fine?

I present the same question to you. Is there a fixed formula for self-assessing sanity?

I don't have difficulty with common definitions, for example, and have no problem recognising what they refer to. I do not see such difficulties in my colleagues here and elsewhere, either.

What "certain trivia" are you referring to?

Academic models of programming issues. So far my detractors haven't found a way to turn them into net empirical results. It's like: "I know how to build a better engine, but I don't know how to RaceTheDamnedCar because races are useless for reasons I cannot articulate. The universe cares about elegance, not profits or staff costs. The universe has emotions and goals because I belong to the Religion of Elegance and I have faith that the universe cares about goals beyond what org owners care about."

Perhaps "academic models of programming issues" are worth knowing, if only to communicate effectively with people who regard them as important. Have you considered trying to understand them?

All knowledge has some use. But so far those who obsess on such cannot turn it into practical benefits and/or metrics. They are doing anti-sales for the topics by flunking this area, fitting the stereotype of one devoid of real-experience and a sense of economic realities because their head has been in the ivory tower too long and/or obsessed by the "pursuit of elegance" above all else.

That doesn't answer my question.

EconomicsOfAdvancedProgramming discusses practical ways to allocate one's learning time. Some people waste time on too much MentalMasturbation.

That still doesn't answer my question, and how do others manage to learn about ComputerScience (I presume that's what you mean by "academic models of programming issues") and keep their day jobs, but you apparently cannot?''

Practical things interest me, not things which are 90% MentalMasturbation.

If you refuse to study ComputerScience, how do you know what is MentalMasturbation and what is not?

Because those who obsess on it here only produce mental jizz, not empirical evidence. It seems to have somehow made you stupider, actually. Is there only so much room up there that filling your head with toys pushed out practical perspectives and empirical techniques?

Your response speaks for itself.

Good!

You're happy with sounding ignorant? Ok... *shrug*

And you are happy being ignorant, unable to put your alleged vast knowledge to practical use beyond your own head. Hobbies are fine, but don't turn them into a religion.

Where have I done that?

I'll see if I can find some of the zinger statements in the sea of Threadmess. So far I cannot find the locations of the ones I remember.

Let me know when you do.