Agreed. I think there's a combination of things here - STEM type subjects for example seem to lend themselves to well defined processes and training, whereas th

Agreed. I think there's a combination of things here - STEM type subjects for example seem to lend themselves to well defined processes and training, whereas things that are a bit more ambiguous (law, journalism, management, politics) leave a lot more space to make things up as you go along. I think there are benefits to both, but whenever I see someone complain about everyone winging it, I think they show their incompetence and lack of professional development. I work in a very fluid field (I recruit salespeople), so the rules are much less defined than if I were building rocketships or bridges or whatever, but there's still an abundance of work out there giving guidance on how things can be done. You see the same things in startups. The successful ones are emulating a lot of the lessons learnt by people who came before them, and then innovate in a small area. The unsuccessful ones are "innovating" on everything.