4 ms·

I disagree with this almost as strongly as I possibly can. I've only ever encountered people with middling or mediocre skill in a subject express this attitude

I disagree with this almost as strongly as I possibly can. I've only ever encountered people with middling or mediocre skill in a subject express this attitude. People that are good, are good because they know precisely where the line between good and bad is, AND they've practiced "good" a LOT. Knowing is enough to articulate it. If you can't, you probably don't know it as well as you think. This leads to a bit of a paradox. The things I'm best at are precisely those things in which I feel I still have the most to learn. Why? Because I know the difference between what I'm doing and what good would be.

MauranKilom 7y ago
What about the example of driving a car with manual transmission? (I admit that's not the most relatable thing everywhere in the world, still). I'd argue most experienced manual drivers are good at it when we talk about normal traffic (where the skill ceiling just isn't very high). Try and ask a manual driver when/how they shift. Maybe they will give you rough speed numbers, but that's not really how they do it. Despite knowing very well when they have to shift in their own car, they won't be able to articulate/communicate it in a helpful way. It's become muscle memory guided by sound, haptics, speed perception and timings. Your clutch and transmission will let you know the difference between good and bad very clearly. You practice "good" a lot. You know how to do it. But you can't articulate it. One could argue that the scenario in question precludes the possibility to "excel". But the striking difference between "new driver learning a manual" and "experienced driver shifting without spending even a sliver of conscious though on it" is a clear separation of "bad" from "good" (not just "mediocre") and should suffice as counterexample to "if you can't articulate it, you're mediocre".
- smogcutter 7y ago
  It seems to me like the disagreement here comes down to the difference between “good” and “good enough”. For a lot of habitual, daily life type skills like driving, good enough is usually fine. You don’t need to be Senna to commute in a 5 speed. Most people are middling/mediocre drivers, and that’s okay! At the same time, I’ll submit that any competent manual driver should be able to sit in the passenger seat and diagnose when a learner is popping the clutch, lugging the engine, etc. If someone can’t, their own driving is probably faulty in ways they aren’t aware of.
  - phkahler 7y ago
    >> It seems to me like the disagreement here comes down to the difference between “good” and “good enough”. Yeah, theres a wide range and a lot of possible words to use. Good enough, Good, Great. Most importantly I think all of those are in contrast to someone who is "bad" at something and the other words to describe that end of the range of ability.
bsder 7y ago
> People that are good, are good because they know precisely where the line between good and bad is, AND they've practiced "good" a LOT. Knowing is enough to articulate it. If you can't, you probably don't know it as well as you think. Formula 1 contradicts you. One of the things that made Michael Schumacher worth the exorbitant salary he got paid was that he could articulate what happened while he was driving on the track in such a way that engineers could make relevant changes. Ferrari had lots of really good drivers, but it took Schumacher until they had somebody who could communicate with the engineering team such that they could actually improve the car.
- Enginerrrd 7y ago
  I would argue you're talking about a situation where a different skillset than was traditionally selected for was what actually became valuable. I'll concede that you could have a really really good driver that can't give useful feedback on their particular performance. Cognitive load is extremely high and they may not remember what something felt like as they were going. However, that same driver in the passenger seat could tell you what you're doing wrong with tremendous nuance: entering a turn too early, speed too slow, suspension not in the right position because you didn't set it up right when braking, etc.

MauranKilom 7y ago

What about the example of driving a car with manual transmission? (I admit that's not the most relatable thing everywhere in the world, still). I'd argue most experienced manual drivers are good at it when we talk about normal traffic (where the skill ceiling just isn't very high). Try and ask a manual driver when/how they shift. Maybe they will give you rough speed numbers, but that's not really how they do it. Despite knowing very well when they have to shift in their own car, they won't be able to articulate/communicate it in a helpful way. It's become muscle memory guided by sound, haptics, speed perception and timings. Your clutch and transmission will let you know the difference between good and bad very clearly. You practice "good" a lot. You know how to do it. But you can't articulate it. One could argue that the scenario in question precludes the possibility to "excel". But the striking difference between "new driver learning a manual" and "experienced driver shifting without spending even a sliver of conscious though on it" is a clear separation of "bad" from "good" (not just "mediocre") and should suffice as counterexample to "if you can't articulate it, you're mediocre".

smogcutter 7y ago
It seems to me like the disagreement here comes down to the difference between “good” and “good enough”. For a lot of habitual, daily life type skills like driving, good enough is usually fine. You don’t need to be Senna to commute in a 5 speed. Most people are middling/mediocre drivers, and that’s okay! At the same time, I’ll submit that any competent manual driver should be able to sit in the passenger seat and diagnose when a learner is popping the clutch, lugging the engine, etc. If someone can’t, their own driving is probably faulty in ways they aren’t aware of.
- phkahler 7y ago
  >> It seems to me like the disagreement here comes down to the difference between “good” and “good enough”. Yeah, theres a wide range and a lot of possible words to use. Good enough, Good, Great. Most importantly I think all of those are in contrast to someone who is "bad" at something and the other words to describe that end of the range of ability.

bsder 7y ago

> People that are good, are good because they know precisely where the line between good and bad is, AND they've practiced "good" a LOT. Knowing is enough to articulate it. If you can't, you probably don't know it as well as you think. Formula 1 contradicts you. One of the things that made Michael Schumacher worth the exorbitant salary he got paid was that he could articulate what happened while he was driving on the track in such a way that engineers could make relevant changes. Ferrari had lots of really good drivers, but it took Schumacher until they had somebody who could communicate with the engineering team such that they could actually improve the car.

Enginerrrd 7y ago
I would argue you're talking about a situation where a different skillset than was traditionally selected for was what actually became valuable. I'll concede that you could have a really really good driver that can't give useful feedback on their particular performance. Cognitive load is extremely high and they may not remember what something felt like as they were going. However, that same driver in the passenger seat could tell you what you're doing wrong with tremendous nuance: entering a turn too early, speed too slow, suspension not in the right position because you didn't set it up right when braking, etc.