Unconventional wisdom: the art of being a know-it-all

[stefadrian]

“By the way … I have seen an actual alien. I don’t have to proof anything to you. I want you to take my word for it.” ;) This kind of “reasoning” is why people “invented” science, it is why we listen to experts. But you don’t have to, of course, aliens is more exciting.

In case of your deer, the case is of course far less obvious. Trust is a nice thing in itself, but gathering knowledge has nothing to do with it. After all, even the best of people have been wrong at times, haven’t they? That is why we try to provide solid evidence, so noone has to take the word of anyone a priori for granted. I think being annoyed by someone asking for evidence is a strange notion. Do you somehow believe that this kind of question implies a personal attack on your integrity?

[BlueDragonSlug]

Honestly, I’ll take all the help I can get! I have been proven wrong many times when it comes to my IDs. How can someone know that they have a 100% accurate ID? Although I agree with the sentiment that if you’ve seen an organism enough you’ll easily recognize it over time. I do have to disagree with the ‘you can’t contest my ID’ kind of mentality. My only suggestion is to try to keep an open mind.

[ekimbro]

If I post something on iNaturalist instead of like, Facebook or whatever, it’s because I hope someone who knows what it is will come and ID it or confirm my ID. Usually, when these people ID something, it’s without any kind of statement at all because it isn’t really necessary and it’s faster to just put in the ID and move on. If they do include a statement, even if it’s a copy and pasted letter that they put on all the observations of that species which they ID, that’s especially helpful and a special treat. It’s in no way condescending, it’s someone taking time out of their day to help me and I wouldn’t want them to feel discouraged from doing so because of a thread like this.

@stefadrian

I think being annoyed by someone asking for evidence is a strange notion. Do you somehow believe that this kind of question implies a personal attack on your integrity?

Also, this is spot on. If someone asks you for evidence you don’t have or don’t want to bother with providing, just tell them you don’t have that evidence or ignore them, and nothing bad will happen. Once again, it’s somebody trying to help with your ID, and they are willing to put in the extra effort to try to get more information because they don’t have all the info THEY would need to ID it, even if you were able to ID it… Be nice. A lot of us DO want our observations to get to research-grade and identifiers who are willing to put in this kind of work are rare and valuable.

@lenrely

A beginner can know a species very well and correctly identify it without any biological training. I call this the “white-tailed deer rule”. Let’s say the observer is a hunter who has never heard of the genus Odocoileus and yet the ID is right.

You’re right about this, of course, but I’m not sure why you think that experts aren’t aware that sometimes organisms are common and people know what they are. I haven’t seen anyone attempt to stop beginners from giving correct IDs on iNaturalist.

[stefadrian]

@jnstuart

They are experts in some aspects of their research organisms but they aren’t actually getting into nature

That’s a rather unfounded assumption, absolutely not true for most experts … and also offensive. It is a variation of a zeitgeist narrative that I actually think is somewhat dangerous: “Of course, them overpaid scientists only sittin in their labs, coming up with all this weird stuff noone understands, while actually they are clueless and never even get out for some fresh air.”
The Hancocks and Danikens of this planet keep telling the very same storyline in a highly repetitive way. Weird, weird …

[jnstuart]

@jnstuart

in an iNaturalist sense

… was the rest of my sentence you quoted. Meaning that observation of the organism in the wild wasn’t part of their research. Which is understandable, if your research involves using museum specimens and/or genetic samples collected by others, but I think something is missing there. Lots of biologists do both – they function well in both the field and lab. But the study of organismal biology has been steadily moving away from the natural history aspect and more towards molecular biology, modeling, and similar lab-oriented research. Study of natural history has been waning for a long time (lots of articles have been written about this). If you are a biologist and call yourself a naturalist today, you’re often viewed as rather old-fashioned … which I guess is true. But I like that old-fashioned approach and I think there’s still room for it alongside the more quantitative research.

[jasonhernandez74]

@ekimbro

I haven’t seen anyone attempt to stop beginners from giving correct IDs on iNaturalist.

I have seen threads where some people imply that iNaturalist should use only Genus species binomials, which amounts to the same thing.

@jnstuart

Study of natural history has been waning for a long time

And ecology has shown an increasing tendency to meta-analyses, which do not involve the collection of new data but the recycling of old.

[lenrely]

It’s not an implication people simply choose frivolous battles, especially when they reiterate themselves a second or third time, because they’re not aware there is anything wrong with it. You may disagree on the subject matter but still find yourself dealing with someone who has good reason you hadn’t considered until you’ve stood in their shoes. We’re not omniscient that you can say aliens and insulate yourself from all misunderstanding.

[jnstuart]

@lenrely

I call this the “white-tailed deer rule”.

Not to take away from your argument, but it just reminded me of some deer photos I was studying recently that happen to be from a place in my state where Mule Deer and White-tailed Deer co-occur. Some of the photos were baffling – the characteristics I could see were not definitive for one species or the other. Turns out that it’s because the two species hybridize there. In this case, both a biologist and non-biologist hunter would’ve been confused.

[fffffffff]

Worth mentioning most people don’t have up to date taxonomy, species they know now can be complex of 6 or they just have no idea similar species co-occur, but look identical.

[dianastuder]

One of the huge advantages of iNat IDs NOT being carved in stone. Taxonomy changes. A new taxon specialist comes to iNat. Shuffle the deck, and many IDs change, or unfold a fresh discussion. A learning curve for each of us, wherever we sit on the Know It All curve. iNatters find new species waiting to be described.

PS bring your skills to the CNC23 Needs ID and Unknowns - while you can still hope to get a response to your ‘need more info’ questions.

[bsteer]

Thank you for mentioning this as it is exactly the point I wished to raise. When you recognise a friend or family member from a distance, can you itemize what visible traits it is that you are using to make this identification? It is not so much one thing or the other, but more the total collection of smaller indicators which all together trigger the filter we have in our brain.

For myself I also find movement to be quite an important indicator. I can often most quickly recognise someone I know from a distance because of the way they are walking. It is the same for wildlife, with many more obvious examples such as the manner in which a particular bird flies (often the most useful thing you have to go on when it’s in silhouette from a distance), but all creatures have their own distinctive movement style. This can also carry over into the sound they make, e.g. when rustling in the woods. Blackbirds and squirrels are two very distinctive rustlers that come to mind

[whitneybrook]

@lenrely

If you’re the best in a certain field you might be tempted to find all the entries for that genus, write a formula letter and cut-and-paste your knowledge hundreds of times, not knowing someone may find this impersonal and unwelcoming. Technical expertise can sometimes be lacking in empathy, because when you’re good at something you don’t imagine there is any down side to it.

As a nonexpert trying to grow my knowledge, I appreciate comments of any sort that provide information about the observed taxa.

I also use copypasta on the species I have done the most work on learning because:

1. It spreads knowledge to others.
2. It exposes what I think I know so that others can correct me.
3. After learning more about the iNat community, I believe copypasta is a socially acceptable form of communication here. I am adapting to group norms.
4. I wish more of experts spread what they know through comments and think copypasta is one of the tools we have to do that. (I realize this isn’t an expectation I can impose on others. Each IDer makes their own choices about how they engage.)
5. While I sometimes customize comments, no comments I make are intended to be personal.

I agree that any communication tool can be used in a way that is ineffective or cause hurt. Some responsibility is on the commenter to try to craft nonoffensive language. But there will always be variation in how comments will be perceived by others and there is no way to account that, even through customization of language specific to each user.

Example of one of my frequently used comments:

Gentianopsis thermalis: Fringed petals/corolla lobes, widest at apex, overlap to create square opening, or spiral arrangement when closed. May have purple vein on calyx; multiple stems. Frequently located near thermal features. https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/144298/journal/72726

[paul_dennehy]

Yes, this. I do an activity with my high school students at the beginning of our unit on insect taxonomy in which we see how many species of insect they can list, and they’re usually amazed that nearly everything they thought was a species was really a family, genus, complex, or even order. You might see an organism every day and really think you have a good eye for it, but not realize you’re conflating a dozen or even a hundred different species in your search image.

I say this as someone who only recently started trying to identify the fungus around my yard, and found that nearly every concept I’d developed of what “types” of fungus I’ve encountered over decades spent in the woods was not taxonomically useful. It’s obviously true that someone might study fungi in a lab and be labeled and expert but lack “field knowledge” to be able to make accurate IDs in nature, but it’s also true that being out in the woods my whole life and taking note of fungus on a regular basis absolutely did not make me any good at fungus IDs either.

The “anti-elitist” strain in our culture these days tends to place self-taught amateur knowledge on a pedestal above the professional knowledge of the “ivory tower elitist” scientists who are said to be disconnected with reality. As a self-taught amateur myself, I personally find this characterization of expertise to be gross and offensive. I get that sometimes an expert can be a snob, but by and large the trained experts who log in to iNat to do IDs are nature enthusiasts themselves, and I rarely have any negative interactions with them. For every case of an expert saying what amounts to “listen to me because I’m an expert”, there are probably a dozen cases of someone saying what amounts to “I’m not an expert but listen to me anyway because I live in nature and know things you can’t possibly have learned in all your professional training.” Being a “know-it-all” isn’t limited to just experts or novices; you’ll find “know-it-alls” everywhere.

[lothlin]

I feel for fungus especially a combination of hands-on knowledge and more scientific knowledge can be a great help, both when I’m out in the woods and IDing stuff on inat, since individual populations within a species can sometimes exhibit an absurd amount of variation.

Take for example these three pictures of mine - these are all the same species of mushroom, at different ages/locations

Like, the color is fairly useless to me (They start out purple and quickly dull to brown or white). I’ve found these before where they were so pale they were nearly white. But, I know that the gills on blewits are crowded and emarginate, the cap surface tends to be not quite sticky but not completely matte either, the stem is a bit brittle and tends to have some flaky striations, they grow on wood chips or leaf duff, and the spore print is pink.

Are all these scientific terms? Hell no, but its how I think about it, and just because I may not necessarily have all the terms for everything memorized, if I went in the field I could confidently point out one of these guys and say ‘that’s Lepista nuda’ and it wouldn’t be inaccurate for me to say I know its a blewit because of how it is

[gabrif]

@jnstuart

If you are a biologist and call yourself a naturalist today, you’re often viewed as rather old-fashioned …

So what? I am old-fashioned in a lot of matters…

[ifesbob]

I saw that happen when I was in Costa Rica. I learned quickly that the taxonomy had changed for many of the things (or I wasn’t given a specific enough ID for my purposes), and in some cases maybe there was some common name/translation thing. They were exactly right about what it was but not necessarily about the current “official” name of it.

[dianastuder]

Yesterday I tripped over this. Sob. Who knew there was a Bug who wants to be a Ladybird!

https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/460589-Steganocerus-multipunctatus

[Ajott]

@stefadrian

That’s a rather unfounded assumption, absolutely not true for most experts …

I tend to diasgree, or rather it really would like to make aware that the definition of what an expert ist might vary extremly among people.

I know many people that one would view as epxerts because they have a certain label… biologists, zoologists, arachnologists…

But I have to agree with the notion that for most of them their expertise by training is very specialized… including myself… any knowledge going beyond that is mainly personal interest… that one can also develop, expand and maintain without a formal degree. In fact I know soooo many people that are “just” nature enthusiasts without college degree that can - concerning IDing organisms - easily hold up with 80% of biologists I know. In my former office alone most of my collegues barely would have been able to ID anything else then their one study organism they were working on (but some are e.g. avid birders…which would have not much to do with their actual studies).

The expertise I have in IDing stems from a personal interest that started well before I even considered to study and forms my expertise until today. I could have gone through my whole formal training with much less knowledge on IDing. My study as well evoled basically around a single organism and it would have been sufficiant to know… maybe two to be ablet to distinguish them in the field. I am the top-identifier for those organisms here… but they do not even occur in my personal top 20 of organisms I ID here. I think this pattern is similiar for many many other IDers with formal training here.

However, surely my formal training helps me to read keys and know where to get my reliable information.

PS: That is of course not a generalized situation… I am sure there are also IDers here with a broad taxonomist or curator background, where IDing here and their profession might overlap some more. But I doubt that this is the rule…

[sedgequeen]

I find myself quite annoyed. Background from which I say what I’m going to say: Long time amateur birder with expanding interests, eventually known as having good skills. When nearly 50 I got a Ph.D. and I’m now a professional, academic, known world expert in a very few plants and I have a general knowledge of many more. Some of my plant knowledge comes from my late husband’s farming relatives, who left school in high school to farm and who knew the trees and the weed seedlings and any other species that interested them in their area.

I know, from my own experience and going out with others, that sometimes one can ID an organism based on its general appearance or behavior (“jizz”) even if a photo taken then doesn’t show any of the traits I’d consider necessary for ID. For this reason, I sometimes think, “Terrible photo but it could be this species, which does live there and the observer probably got a better look,” and I click agree. Sometimes, though, I just can’t see enough to do that in good conscience. And sometimes, that “jizz” just isn’t enough.

I hate to see experts (most often academic experts) treated like we’re all the same and all arrogant. Catch me when I’m tired and I might be, though I try not to be. The word’s expert on bluegrass taxonomy? Or willows of North America? Or grass systemmatics? North America’s Carex guru? An academic expert in plant systemmatics? Several herbarium curators? A lot of agency botanists? Very nice. Very helpful. Mostly not doing ID’s on iNaturalist because they have actual work to do (some of it in the field, though not as much as they’d like), but they’ve helped when I ask and been happy to do it. Sometimes I wonder if the offense about “expertise” is due to real experiences or to paranoia, to insecurity about one’s own skills. Oh, it could be based on reality. Every field has it’s asses. But you can’t generalize.

Ironically, though people talk about arrogant, rude scientists, a trait necessary for doing good science is humility (or at least the willingness to pretend to it when necessary). We have to realize that not only could You be wrong, but I could be wrong. I have to be willing to back up my ideas with data or expect them to be shot down. My identifications must have reasons I’m willing to reveal. (We also need enough arrogance to stick with our ideas if we feel the data support them, even when others disagree.) If I don’t respect you, I might refrain from asking for your reasons, just think “this poor inexperienced person won’t know” and move on. If I do respect you, I’ll feel free to ask, as you’d legitimately ask me.

And copy/paste responses? Wonderful. I use them a lot and learn from them when others do. They’re intended as time-savers, not put-downs. I’ve been thanked for them often enough that I think a lot of people don’t consider them put-downs.

[Ajott]

What she said

Generalizing is most often problematic… in any direction.