Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 09:10 PM EDT |
True. If his motives were malicious, it would recommend against his openness in
discussing the deliberations. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:27 PM EDT |
"Understanding Hogan" would be a good name for a stoner movie.
The part I don't get is how he continues to get a pass in the interviews. Isn't
there one reporter out there who would enjoy backing him into a corner and
flushing him down the toilet? Just one?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Charles888 on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 12:58 AM EDT |
Agreed. Nothing worse than an
idiot, than an idiot who think he is
smart.
Add to that a pinch of self-
assuredness and a lot of weak willed
jury, and you have a mess on you
have a mess on our hands.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 02:54 AM EDT |
Any sufficiently shocking display of stupidity is
indistinguishable from malice[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
There's a paper on this that I found (or rather was pointed to) on the
internet.
Somthing like, "dumb, and too dumb to recognise it".
The general conclusion was that the majority of people assume they are average,
the idiots because they can't see their own weaknesses, and the clever ones
because they can't believe how stupid other people can be.
What was interesting was, if you took the dumb ones and gave them the tools to
see their dumbness, they suddenly improved both in their ability AND in their
ability to assess their ability.
Maybe that question was a trick question - if someone said "of course I'm a
great programmer" they didn't get the job?
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT |
The Dunning-Kruger
effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from
illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average.
This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to
recognize their mistakes.
To put it plainly, individuals with less
competence in a certain area are often not well equipped to judge their own
competence in that area. This is how people who are actually quite bad at a
certain competency can end up thinking they are good at it--they aren't equipped
to even notice that they're bad at it.
It's possible that Mr. Hogan thinks
he understands all about patents and patent law because of his personal
experience in applying for, and being granted, a patent. He many not even be
aware that some of the reasoning he applied to steer the jury's findings was
completely contrary to law and to the jury instructions. Since he keeps giving
interviews, I think its safe to assume he doesn't read Groklaw. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 02:13 PM EDT |
There once was an inquisitive lad who wondered why an old man was called the
village wise man. So, he decided to ask the question... Are you wise? The old
man thought for a minute and responded this way. Truely, I could not be wise if
I said I was. But to say I wasn't would be a lie. I think the moral for me is
beware of those who have a certainty about them that excludes evaluation of
fresh data. It is not crime to be wrong but it does take a certain amount of
humility to admit it. I don't know if he can do it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
This is precisely why I ask canidates to rank themselves for specific
technologies on a scale of 1 to 10 when interviewing (and then to explain the
rating they've chosen). The ones who have a clue give themselves between 5 and
7. The canidates that don't even know what it is, mostly choose a 9 or 10. It
tells me more about the canidates mindset in about 3 seconds than the entire
rest of the interview. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|