There's a distinction that I've seen people miss, which I'll describe by example. Suppose you don't know Lisp, but you've seen many respectable people such as P

There's a distinction that I've seen people miss, which I'll describe by example. Suppose you don't know Lisp, but you've seen many respectable people such as Paul Graham and Steve Yegge describe how great Lisp is for metaprogramming. This doesn't mean that you know the fact "Lisp => great for metaprogramming"! What you know is the fact "Many respectable people think => 'Lisp => great for metaprogramming'". This is an important distinction! It means you probably shouldn't talk about Lisp and metaprogramming, and if you do talk, you should make sure that you deliver the right fact, i.e. "I've heard that Lisp is good for metaprogramming", not "Lisp is good for metaprogramming". > What I fear is looking incredible. I'd rather that you fear being incredible (which it appears you are). A resource that helped me think much more precisely about what I know and the level of confidence I have in that is the rationalist writings of Eliezer Yudkowsky. You might like to check out the sequences: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences When what you know differs from what is real, you have a problem where your mental map does not match the actual territory. The most important sequence, Map And Territory, addresses that: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_Territory_%28sequence%29 http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_Territory_%28sequence... I also recommend to you the Reductionism sequence: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Reductionism_%28sequence%29 http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Reductionism_%28sequence%29 How often do you say "I don't know"? I think Voltaire was on to something when he wrote: "He must be very ignorant, for he answers every question he is asked."