On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:18:24 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> No, I make the assumption that because Linked-In never changed at all
>>> during the time I was using it, it won't have changed during the time
>>> I haven't been using it. Or at least, won't have changed much.
>>
>> "It didn't change while I was using it, so it won't have changed since
>> I stopped using it" - that's a bad assumption to make.
> 
> What, expecting future events to resemble past ones?
> 
> Isn't that ultimately the basis of all scientific inquiry? ;-)

Certainly in the space of the physical world.  I don't think decisions by 
people really qualify as a 'reproducible experiment'.

>>> And you seem to be doing the typical Jim thing of asserting that if
>>> the conclusion is incorrect, then all of the evidence is invalid.
>>
>> Not really.  What you take for evidence is often provably false
>> information.  Like the 'impossibility' or even 'difficulty' of removing
>> a tripod from a 360 degree photograph using off-the-shelf software (and
>> even free software, at that).
> 
> Depends on whether you want to split hairs between "actually impossible"
> and "so insanely difficult that it is _effectively_ impossible".
> 
> Sure, there might be some genius who is so skilful that he can edit the
> tripod and its shadow out of a complex image, somehow faking the details
> hidden behind these structures. But for the average person, no, this is
> not possible. (Unless you take a photograph of something so dull that
> there are no details to fake.)

For the average person, it most certainly is possible.  There are tools 
in the basic/cheap versions of Photoshop to do this sort of thing IIRC.

>>> It's perfectly possible for incorrect information to lead you to a
>>> conclusion that happens to be true
>>
>> Only by pure chance.
> 
> That's my point.
> 
> If you do not have all of the information (the usual case), then whether
> your conclusions are correct or not is largely chance.

I don't think this is the "usual case".  I've got nearly 42 years of time 
invested in this planet, and I usually make good calls about stuff.  I've 
got a good track record with it.  I don't think it's largely chance, but 
an effective ability to accurately predict outcomes based on the 
available evidence.  The brain does take intuitive shortcuts 
automatically about things.

>> I guess it's been my week to pick fights with people.  Sorry about that
> 
> No worries.
> 
> I've noticed, on multiple forums, that I seem to piss people off. I
> guess I'm just a bad human being. In the past, people used to just
> ignore me. Now people talk to me, but only to tell me that I'm an idiot.
> I'm not sure that's an improvement...

Well, no, it's not my intention to say "Andy, you're an idiot" - I hope 
you know that.  What you do tend to do, though, is start from a very bad 
premise and then make wild assertions that are not accurate and very 
easily verifiable.

I'll admit, sometimes it feels like you're doing it intentionally (though 
I think I know better and know you're not) just to wind people up.

>> You have to admit, though, that you do have a history of making bad
>> assumptions and then drawing conclusions that are nonsensical.
> 
> Or maybe just a history of not having all the facts... I guess we can't
> all be experts in everything.

Nobody's an expert in everything, but as I said above, when you make bold 
assertions that are easily verified as being false, you affect your 
credibility.  It's one thing to make a bad guess about string theory and 
how it affects the world.  It's another thing to make a bad assertion 
about the cost and purpose of auto insurance (pulling a random example).

A good rule of thumb I use is that if a large group of people use 
something successfully and I don't, then the problem isn't with the thing 
I'm using, it's with how I'm trying to use it.

>>> I was just curious as to why other people apparently do use it. If the
>>> answer is "they changed it so it doesn't suck now", then that's fine.
>>
>> I didn't think it sucked then.  YMMV.  You should take another look at
>> it, but if past behaviours are any indicator, you'll probably still
>> think it sucks.
> 
> Heh, the null hypothesis... ;-)
> 
> I'll see if I can figure out what my password is. (If not, I guess I can
> look it up on some Russian forum...)

LOL

There is a forgotten password link you can use to reset it, of course.

>> You might consider if the reason it sucks is because of how its set up,
>> or of how you're using it.
> 
> Or because - as I already suggested - it's perhaps aimed at somebody
> other than me.

That's certainly possible, but you are a "job seeker", and that's part of 
the target audience.  But jobs typically don't fall out of the sky into 
your lap (as you know), you have to work to find them (which you also 
know) and it can be difficult (which you also also know).

>> There are millions of people who do use it with some success, so it
>> seems logical to infer from that that perhaps there are better ways to
>> use it than the way you're trying to.
> 
> OOC, do you have any factual basis for saying that "millions of people
> do use it with some success", beyond the fact that the site still exists
> and hasn't gone bankrupt yet? Or is /that/ merely an assumption? :-P

Oooh, he's got teeth, this one does. ;)  That's a fair question.

Look at the number of people I'm connected to.  I follow a number of 
companies and see people taking positions at new companies that had jobs 
posted on the site.

My network (out to three degrees) consists of nearly 5 million people.

Every job search professional I have talked to (recruiters, placement 
agencies, etc.) has said that networking is something that's generally a 
good predictor of success in finding employment.

It seems reasonable to build the case that with (a) a good set of data 
(not necessarily a large volume of data, but a good set - in fact, a 
large set can be a deterrent, just ask anyone who has a 35-page CV how 
successful they are at finding work) on an individual basis, (b) a large 
network of people in your field, and (c) someone in a company knowing 
about a position that's a good fit for you because they know you, that 
such a site is going to be successful in helping lots of people find work.

> (Not that a seriously doubt you. But it sounds like exactly the sort of
> statement that's easy to casually make and almost impossible to
> objectively verify.)

See above. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message