Popular misconceptions about your area(s) of expertise...

[Wyes]

I study history. Specifically the medieval era, though I am also a WW2 buff on the side.

Armor is not ultra heavy and impossible to maneuver in (in fact you can mount a horse, cartwheel, and even swim in the stuff), swords are not extremely heavy and unwieldy, the Katana is an okay sword and not an amazing godlike one, the West has a huge documented martial arts tradition that may actually have more written records than the Eastern ones, English longbows cannot pierce plate armor, mail was more expensive than plate armor in later years, Voltaire's opinions on the Holy Roman Empire can go to hell, Vikings were not barbarians, the Muslim world was for most of history better than the Christian one, there is no such thing as "studded leather", what most people call "bastard swords" are actually called long swords and what people call long swords are actually arming swords, life wasn't as bad as people think it was, and on and on and on.

The average person has their entire view of the Middle Ages created through D&D and video games.

As a practioner of WMA/HEMA, this covers basically all of the things I wanted to say about that topic (other than some other misconceptions amidst the WMA community itself, which leads to flame wars that nobody much wants to get involved in). I have to say that one thing that always bugged me about most Eastern martial arts is that they've got this whole underlying mysticism which really doesn't gel with me. The Western stuff usually has its focus on biomechanics instead, which is cool. That isn't to say that I don't appreciate the Eastern stuff (I've just started learning Japanese Jujutsu from one of my Maths lecturers actually, which is great because there's no mysticism, thus far).

The fact that I plan to study Theoretical Physics does not mean I'm like Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory... Ugh.

I get this one all the time, for the same reason. I understand, I guess; the character is the only Theoretical Physicist that the lay-person is aware of, which I think is sad. Especially because the character is a terrible scientist.

 

[Musette]

As an artist I deal with tons of misconceptions about art. The big one that bothers me is when people say something like "I was just never talented enough to be an artist." No one was ever born with innate artistic talent. Becoming an artist means learning all the techniques for rendering an image, developing thematic and philosophical content, practicing a lot, and having the patience to work on a painting for the ridiculous amount of time that it takes to make a good painting. It's not talent, it's hard work, and it's frustrating to hear that get dismissed.

And while I don't work in pure abstraction myself, I do find it offensive when people outright dismiss artists like Pollock or Rothko because they don't understand enough about the art world to know how to look at them in the first place. Yes, there are some talentless hacks who have used abstraction to get away with being lazy, but that's no reason to dismiss an entire genre inhabited by some truly driven artists.

As a musician, I have dealt with very strong parallels to what you've mentioned. I'm by no means "naturally talented" as a musician. It took a lot of work as a percussionist to pick up the techniques for playing so many different instruments, learning theory, and developing my musicality/expression to get where I am today, and while I still have a lot of work to do to improve, I'd rather not hear people write off all my hard work I've put in so far as simply "talent". I don't make too big of a deal when a person calls me talented as a compliment, but if a person says that they're "not talented enough" to do something artistic, I tend to drive the point home that talent has nothing to do with it.

I've seen more abstract music get dismissed (even by fellow music students) similarly to what you've mentioned as well. I may not be crazy about John Cage or Elliot Carter, but their pieces are far from "just noise" and tend to go really deep into music theory (a friend of mine jokes that Cage's pieces are more interesting "on paper" than in practice because of how fascinating the theory behind the pieces can be, and yet many of them aren't very fun to listen to). What's even worse is when some music schools act like music composed later than the early 20th century isn't worth noting. Ironically, my main percussion instruments (namely marimba and vibraphone) are young enough instruments that all the pieces composed specifically for them are fairly new in a music history perspective. I think this just all relates to the idea that people will say that something is not art if they don't personally understand and/or like it, which is one of my biggest pet peeves.

Other than that, I don't like that people assume that because I'm a percussionist that I automatically know how to do all these theatrical stick flips and whatnot. I am most comfortable playing mallet percussion, and mallets tend to be weighted on one end and far from ideal for developing stick flips in the first place. Also, I just don't have much of an interest in doing them in general, and I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only percussionist who feels this way.

 

[JagermanXcell]

To my friends I'm an expertise when it comes to movies/writing, video games too but we hardly talk about those until recently. I respect their opinions and they respect mine, but what really peeves me is when they assume I liked the main stream garbage all the "cool kids" talk about. Ex. Transformers films: They assumed I liked the movies for the flashy CGI and dropped the story so I can sit there and popcorn munch. No, I hated every second of those films story wise and visually, that series is frikin horrid. They also assumed I would prefer The Amazing Spiderman over, not the first film, or the second, but the entire original trilogy! I can understand that 3 was bad, and 1 was cheesy, but an entire trilogy together to suck more than "The Not So Amazing Spiderman" alone is ludicrous.

Recently they invited me over to play Halo 4 and COD BO 2, and of course they expected me to praise the o so innovative titles...
Believe me, its really really hard to convince high schoolers to want to play a game like Persona 4, cause explaining the premise to them doesn't have enough MULTIPLAYER ONLINE FPS 360 NOOB NO SCOPING to satisfy their "variety" when it comes to playing video games. Translation: They'll stick to their brown and gray guns, forever...

 

[Flutterbrave]

Not sure it counts as 'expertise' but as a fairly regular LoL player it annoys me when my flatmate comments that the game requires no skill or strategy at all. He bases this not on personal playing experience, but on watching me play half a game.

Also, as a biology student, I have been asked a few times to identify a completely random plant/animal in an instant. Yeah, um, no. Natural history =/= biology.
It's also depressing how few people look at classification in the 'right' way. There's a worrying preconception that the separate phyla/classes/orders/families/genera/species already exist and we just discover them, when in reality its just a system we've created to better organise that vast number of organisms out there for our convenience. Seriously, even biologists can't really separate species very clearly. We tend to just stick things that can breed and have fertile offspring together as the same species, but even this falls apart when looking at close relatives (see the hilariously named Beefalo)

 

[Pink Gregory]

And while I don't work in pure abstraction myself, I do find it offensive when people outright dismiss artists like Pollock or Rothko because they don't understand enough about the art world to know how to look at them in the first place. Yes, there are some talentless hacks who have used abstraction to get away with being lazy, but that's no reason to dismiss an entire genre inhabited by some truly driven artists.

This.

I live above an art gallery/picture framing workshop, that was displaying a couple of small abstract works from a local artist for < £200; one evening I heard some cretin walk past and loudly proclaim "£200 for that? I could do that!"

No, you really fucking couldn't.

I teach guitar to a guy who's an abstract expressionist painter, and I can only imagine the shit he has to put up with.

Language.

I'm a punctuation freak, I crawl up into the foetal position when I can't discern whether to use 'its' or 'it's' when denoting possession of a quality or quantity; mainly because misused apostrophes get my hackles up. "CD's and DVD's" especially.

And I guess using the wrong kind of 'they're/there/their' and not pluralising correctly is poor spelling, rather than grammar?

 

[Pink Gregory]

Also, playing a generic rock beat at a high tempo does not make you a good drummer. Playing one at a high tempo while still keeping time might make you a passable punk drummer, but that's it.

Depends how well you keep time, and what you define as 'good'.

Just because you can play a lot doesn't mean that you should.

 

[Zanderinfal]

Just because I am a gamer, I know alot stuff about computers and I have made my own games every so often does not- I repeat, DOES NOT- mean I am a programmer. I mean, I appreciate the sentiment and all, but I wouldn't go near C++ with a 10 foot barge pole being held by someone else.

 

[Arqus_Zed]

People who think J.K. Rowling invented the Phoenix.
I kid you not.

I have a great interest in myths and legends - like many people, I guess. More specifically, demonology and judo-christian lore (Key of Solomon, Paradise Lost, Divina Comedia, etc.). Of course, once you get in that territory, you come across some Aleister Crowley stuff as well.

And just in general, I don't have a problem when people use names of demons for their own character (Amon, Azazel, Asteroth are some of the more popular ones), just because "they sound cool". However, I do get annoyed when people learn about some mythical entity in a book and then assume the writer is responsible for its creation - even more so if they start altering the mythos surrounding it.

I'm not even sure if this pet peeve is against the writer or the reader.

 

[Smokej]

self proclaimed Experts in Messageboards (aka i'm a major in xyz therefore i know):

I know there isn't a specified definition of an expert but when it comes to academic expertise, I find it totally presumptuous when undergraduate students or comparable half-academics call themselves experts...

Sorry but in most educational systems your academic expertise begins when you start to do your own research (may happen in your Master Thesis but more likely in your PhD studies)

Everything before is nothing more than simplified reproduction from real experts and is considered as basic knowledge of the scientific tools, methods and some specialist knowledge in your field.

 

[hatseflats]

People who:
1) Think history deals in "facts" and how the past "really happened." Leopold von Ranke has been dead for almost 130 years. History moved on.
3) Think that we need to "know the past" in order to prevent "past mistakes" from "happening again." That one really gets my goat, since it is utter bullshit.
4) Who think that history is a horribly imprecise discipline. No. In fact, I would dare to argue that it is epistemologically more sophisticated than quite a number of other disciplines in the Humanities/Social "Sciences."

Interesting. I'm doing a history minor (6 courses) so I'm by no means an expert, but AFAIK the exact facts are kind of crucial because if you get them wrong, you are likely to draw incorrect conclusions (of course, this only refers to important facts, not whether a soldier is carrying a Lee Enfield or an L1A1).
Also, about the sophistication. I'm not sure I'd call the historical method sophisticated. I think history is very interesting and the historical method definitely has its merits, but if you take history to be about determining patterns of cause and effect (as I think you do, considering your statements) then it's not particularly useful. Historians disagree about the causes of many developments, and the method offers no solution whatsoever to determine who is right. In it's current form, history inspires people and can thus contribute to other disciplines, but it's not very useful on its own.
Also, determining cause and effect is certainly useful to prevent future mistakes. Knowing about causes and effects is only useful if it can instruct us what we should and can do.

I'm studying economics, so I'm not (yet) an expert. However, the misconceptions about the dismal science are rather aggravating. Economists do not disagree about everything. Economists use models based on rational behaviour not because they think people are rational but because it is a very useful approximation. It definitely has its shortcomings, and any proper economist is well aware of that.
Also, economics is NOT about companies, "making money", "getting rich", stock trading or finance. It tries to explain human behaviour and interactions in a very specific way (mathematical optimisation) and is a very theoretical enterprise. Asking an economist how to solve the Greek crisis, for example, is like asking a physicist how to prevent a plane crash.
Also, the really dumb stuff economists think or say is not actually what economists think or say but what journalists and politicians say when they're misusing economic concepts (indeed, there are very few economists who would argue for a complete lack of government intervention. Adam "invisible hand" Smith notably thought the government should play a major role in society).

 

[Mr F.]

I'm only a student. What now?

What? I demand that I take part in this thread! >

Do what the rest of us do!

PRETEND YOU HAVE ALREADY GRADUATED!

This is the internet, most people do not noticed when you are basing your entire argument on a few barely understood lectures during your first year!

On that note, I hate it when as a result of accepting that race has no concrete biological argument people then assume the answer to racism is to stop studying it. That is not so much a misconception people have about what I study as a point of much disagreement within my field of study.

Give me another 4 years, or 9 if things go well, and I will actually be able to post in this thread "From my area of expertise".

People who:
1) Think history deals in "facts" and how the past "really happened." Leopold von Ranke has been dead for almost 130 years. History moved on.
2) Think historians know every inane detail of everything that ever happened. We don't. In fact, if you meet someone who bores you to death with tedious little historical details, and gets angry when people are being "historically incorrect" (how DARE you depict the soldiers in that WW2 movie with 50s era machine guns!!!!111), then you probably met a historian who wasn't academically trained.
3) Think that we need to "know the past" in order to prevent "past mistakes" from "happening again." That one really gets my goat, since it is utter bullshit.
4) Who think that history is a horribly imprecise discipline. No. In fact, I would dare to argue that it is epistemologically more sophisticated than quite a number of other disciplines in the Humanities/Social "Sciences."

1) History is a diverse field, different historians do different shit. So I will ignore this one. True, a lot of historians deal in broad strokes, but get my sister talking about her work and she deals in a lot of facts. And dates. Fun stuff, rather grim to hear about sometimes, yet still interesting.
2) See above. Strange that my sister (PhD) does this sometimes. I guess she is not a real historian. Cause you said so. I find it irritating when historical facts are shat all over because I find it breaks immersion. That is life. She just notices and finds it annoying, much like my parents do when language is wrong in period dramas (They are linguists).
3) Those who do not know the past are condemned to repeat it. Uh, I do not see in any way how you can state that statement is utter bullshit. If you do not learn from the past where else are you hoping to learn from? Strange that you would study history and hold this view. But I guess my view could come down to political ideology so I will let that slide.
4) Oh, fuck the whole hatred against social sciences. Yes, I get it, you historians are high and mighty because... What? Because you have a different method of studying the past? Because history has been studied for longer and some of the social sciences are much younger? Because a lot of what you are doing is seen as irrelevant to most non-academics? Because you rely on the studies carried out by social scientists to get your research done?

I deal with that last issue with regards to my sister on a regular basis. And it truly tires me.

The only subject that can claim to be superior to all other subjects is mathematics. Simply because when you get down to it, everything is based on mathematics.

 

[Idlemessiah]

I'm an archaeologist, so historical inaccuracy really riles me up.

Like going to a British Bronze Age site where they've reconstructed a roundhouse for visitors, and it has a fucking TREE TRUNK holding up the middle of the roof! I wanted to find the person who was responsible and slap them silly. My dad had a go at me for complaining (I was being quite vocal about it tbh) but there is no evidence anywhere ever of people using an ENTIRE TREE TRUNK to hold up their roof.

 

[AstylahAthrys]

My area of expertise is writing, and I think I'm able to call myself that since both my creative writing and research papers have been praised by multiple college professors as being a "writing genius." For the record, I'm currently working on writing my first proper novel, which I don't expect to be put out any time soon since I'm being incredibly meticulous about all the details. (Obviously, I don't put as much effort into forum posts as I do my college papers or my novel, but moving on...)

Writing, especially proper writing in today's society, is taken for granted. Being able to churn out a novel or a thesis not only of good research, but of pristine quality in diction and flow, is immensely difficult. Being a proper writer not only involves creativity, but loads of research, and to write a subject properly, you need to not only possess good writing skills, but expertise in the subject you are dealing with.

We're also not all substance abusers.

 

[Angie7F]

Cosmetics sales...that's a new one on me, where I live it's mostly supplements & dietary aids.
But the other misconceptions about us are hair-pullingly bad as well, the worst of course is
the idea that we're all really prostitutes...ewwwww....

That, and/ or we are all lesbians...

 

[Doitpow]

As a student aspiring for a chemistry degree...
Chemistry isn't blowing stuff up or mixing acids and bases. It is math. But unlike calculus, it is actually applied to something, so I like it.

As a training Atronomer I slap you aboot the face.
My misconception is that calculus is useless. Calculus is used in

Astronomy
Enginereering
Formula One
Game design
Demography
Statistical analysis

Actually everything
everygorramthing

Hell, chemistry. Your a chemist, you know that the rate of reaction can change over time, Calculus allows you to know the rate of reaction at any point in time instantaneously, WITHOUT OBSERVING the reaction. Differentiate that curve baby.
Integration is used to predict the total output of industrial chemistry all the time.

Newtniz did not invent this shit for fun. ITs VERY FUCKING USEFULL.

/rant
EDIT: No, I'm a not a EXPERT in anything as so many people have pointed out, and as other people have pointed out, starting a degree in something doesn't make you extremely knowledgeable about it. However, looking for EXPERTS in any field trawling the Escapist forums at midday on a friday seems like a futile fucking task

 

[SinisterGehe]

When people know basic theories and ideas of Philosophy but do not understand me.

How hard it is to understand:

Inside the cube there is an object. We can not observe / sense the object anyway, we do not know anything about the object. But we know that inside the box there is a object.
How hard it is to understand that we can not discuss the properties of the object. We can't even discuss what it is. "ofc you say : let's guess" but then you aren't talking of the object but about what the object could be. 2 different topics.

Also in music. People think Classical music is always old... This makes me deeply sad as classical musician - who plays great deal of 21st century classical music.

 

[Doitpow]

Also that because I study any of the "hard" sciences, that I'm actually intelligent. Studying anything is easy. Studying is just understanding what other people do. Creating things requires intelligence, adding to a body of knowledge, writing a book, painting a ... painting, that shit is HARD.

I seem to be cussing a lot in forums today, does everything think I'm a big, tough guy? You do? Great.

 

[Spinozaad]

This is not meant to attack your views, but we might witness the distinction between the more theoretically minded historians (yes, history has theory!) and the ones who acknowledge Collingwood, White and Ankersmit might exist, but then move on to think along Rankean lines.

Interesting. I'm doing a history minor (6 courses) so I'm by no means an expert, but AFAIK the exact facts are kind of crucial because if you get them wrong, you are likely to draw incorrect conclusions (of course, this only refers to important facts, not whether a soldier is carrying a Lee Enfield or an L1A1.

The problem, which kind of eluded the traditional historians, is that historical "facts" are hard to ascertain or completely irrelevant. One might call the execution of Louis XVI in 1792 a historical fact, but that's insignificant. No historian really cares. The question historians are interested in is the how and why, at which point any exact fact flies out of the window, since there is always too little evidence to base any objectively truthful statements regarding the past on.

Also, about the sophistication. I'm not sure I'd call the historical method sophisticated. I think history is very interesting and the historical method definitely has its merits, but if you take history to be about determining patterns of cause and effect (as I think you do, considering your statements) then it's not particularly useful. Historians disagree about the causes of many developments, and the method offers no solution whatsoever to determine who is right. In it's current form, history inspires people and can thus contribute to other disciplines, but it's not very useful on its own.

It's sophisticated because good historians are aware of their own epistemological limitations (see my comments above) and its focus on the unique as opposed to the generalized. Compared to other social disciplines, without denying their uses, history is always careful about elevating a certain context to truth, or to mistake "models" for patterns. Compare, for example, International Relations. One IR "school of thought', Realism, assumes that states behave in ways that reflect personality. States or organizations tend to be equated to the individual Princes of Machiavelli's Il Principe. While the model might explain (or, worse, "predict") behaviour, it glosses over the assumption that a state can have personality. Historians' prime benefit is to offer context.

Also, determining cause and effect is certainly useful to prevent future mistakes. Knowing about causes and effects is only useful if it can instruct us what we should and can do.

But the context is always different. There are no historical "laws" that can be uncovered by studying the past. "Decline and fall" of nation-states is not a historical pattern, it's a narrative. You can't derive lessons from history, only "put them in."

 

[Pakkie]

Networking - Everything, your all retarded now get the fuck out of my basement.

 

[Spinozaad]

1) History is a diverse field, different historians do different shit. So I will ignore this one. True, a lot of historians deal in broad strokes, but get my sister talking about her work and she deals in a lot of facts. And dates. Fun stuff, rather grim to hear about sometimes, yet still interesting.

How do we define a fact? That's the tricky part of the historian's trade. If "consensus" is the prime criterion for "historical facts", then historians still don't deal in them. First example: "The October Revolution happened in November 1917."
What is "truthful" about that statement? It's called the October Revolution because of the calendar in used in Tsarist Russia, but the entire concept of historical time is already unlike how the natural sciences understand time. It also immediately betrays the "Western" perspective on those events in Russia, because we embed their history in our timeline.

But this is just bickering for philosophers of history. A bigger problem is the entire concept of "October Revolution" (or "French Revolution", or whatever). Was there one? Which events were part of it? How are these events related to "make" the October Revolution? Was it actually a Revolution? We might call this essentially contested colligatory concept (a proto-narrative which groups different events into one coherent whole, but people disagree on which events ought to constitute the conept) a historical "fact" based on the consensus that, yes, there was a revolution in "October".

But historians immediately disagree on what this revolution was. So how "factual" is the stuff of historians really?

2) See above. Strange that my sister (PhD) does this sometimes. I guess she is not a real historian. Cause you said so. I find it irritating when historical facts are shat all over because I find it breaks immersion. That is life. She just notices and finds it annoying, much like my parents do when language is wrong in period dramas (They are linguists).

Personal taste, then. I find people who ***** about the littlest inconsistencies tedious. I might have overstated my position, but people who know all of how Napoleon broke fast, but are utterly unable to articulate a reasoned idea on Napoleon's influence on the 19th Century are horrible historians in my book.

Of course, if you can dazzle me with ideas, evidence and examples from your area of expertise, while also integrating these into a meaningful, coherent narrative; then you are a wonderful historian. My point was aimed at those people who fail to see the forest through the trees.

3) Those who do not know the past are condemned to repeat it. Uh, I do not see in any way how you can state that statement is utter bullshit. If you do not learn from the past where else are you hoping to learn from? Strange that you would study history and hold this view. But I guess my view could come down to political ideology so I will let that slide.

There are no "historical laws", therefore you cannot cut-and-paste historical "lessons" onto present concerns. All lessons from the past are the creation of the historian, not created by the past itself. All patterns (such as the "rise and fall" narrative) historians have seen in the past have a contradictory counterexample. History can contextualize present experience. It can help us understand our present condition, but not tell us how to move into the future.

4) Oh, fuck the whole hatred against social sciences. Yes, I get it, you historians are high and mighty because... What? Because you have a different method of studying the past? Because history has been studied for longer and some of the social sciences are much younger? Because a lot of what you are doing is seen as irrelevant to most non-academics? Because you rely on the studies carried out by social scientists to get your research done?

Not a hatred, thanks for the Strawman, but a slight concern on some of the epistemological claims put forth by some of the social "sciences" (they shouldn't be called "sciences", that's the main point.) Sociology, anthropology and economy are rich and rewarding disciplines, and they have brought some interesting ideas into the world, but the knowledge they produce isn't as solid as some would like to think.

"International Relations", "Political Science" and "Social Psychology" should be banished to the deepest, dirtiest pits of hell, though.

The only subject that can claim to be superior to all other subjects is mathematics. Simply because when you get down to it, everything is based on mathematics.

That's quite reductionist. I'm awaiting your mathematical exploration on the human condition.