3 ms·

To be concise is more indicative of mastery rather than proficiency. You can understand something very well and be able to navigate your way through your own do

To be concise is more indicative of mastery rather than proficiency. You can understand something very well and be able to navigate your way through your own domain of expertise at whim. But if you can do that AND also communicate your domain to those for whom your domain is horribly foreign then you've demonstrated that you've not merely mastered the domain but that you have a grasp on a more foundational framework that translates to virtually limitless perspectives. Proficiency is to navigate your world, Mastery is to successfully guide a complete alien through that world and have them see it, even if just dimmly, with the eyes of a native.

Jebdm 16y ago
I don't think that what you're calling mastery and proficiency are matters of degree like you seem to be expressing. Ability to communicate can be completely separate from understanding, because (particularly if you're of above-average intelligence) most people don't understand things the same way that you do.
- VaedaStrike 16y ago
  I don't think that the underlying inherent knowledge that accompanies the capacity to successfully transmit understanding can be set apart from a more complete understanding. For example if you can produce any number of outcomes in a single language but lack the capacity to do the same things in another language there's a level of abstraction that you simply have not witnessed which itself gives greater dimension to the fundamental capacities that are being exercised. If all you know is English, even if you speak it very very very well you can go your whole life missing out on seeing language itself rather than just a one dimensional perspective on a single language. You can have all the parts held in theory but until you can see equivalents in another language in action you lack understanding of English. The mere capacity to communicate something real demands an empathy that speaks to experience on a higher level. If you can't, in some degree of abundance, find analogous material from which you can more clearly communicate your realm of knowledge to the uninitiated then it says something about the true depth of your knowledge. Just as you can't get real depth perception without a plurality of vistas neither can you truly see what you're doing unless you have experience, and thereby the capacity for empathy and making links with that empathy, from far outside of your field of focus.
VaedaStrike 16y ago
"then you've demonstrated that you've not merely mastered the domain but that you have a grasp on a more foundational framework that translates to virtually limitless perspectives" I should have phrased that "not merely grasped" instead of "not merely mastered"
mparke 16y ago
I really like what you've said here. However I'd like to suggest that you've narrowed Mastery quite a bit, The way I see it, proficiency can come with with the ability to guide an alien through the world you understand, but mastery might exist as your very own specific understanding (which when measured against another's mastery might not even be in the same range of comparison ). I might try even argue your point differently, maybe your proficiency represents the ability for you to compare to another person's proficiency in a common subject, which allows you to achieve conciseness when discussing the subject. And your mastery is merely a completely individual experience. Just thinking out loud here. Again well said.

Jebdm 16y ago

I don't think that what you're calling mastery and proficiency are matters of degree like you seem to be expressing. Ability to communicate can be completely separate from understanding, because (particularly if you're of above-average intelligence) most people don't understand things the same way that you do.

VaedaStrike 16y ago
I don't think that the underlying inherent knowledge that accompanies the capacity to successfully transmit understanding can be set apart from a more complete understanding. For example if you can produce any number of outcomes in a single language but lack the capacity to do the same things in another language there's a level of abstraction that you simply have not witnessed which itself gives greater dimension to the fundamental capacities that are being exercised. If all you know is English, even if you speak it very very very well you can go your whole life missing out on seeing language itself rather than just a one dimensional perspective on a single language. You can have all the parts held in theory but until you can see equivalents in another language in action you lack understanding of English. The mere capacity to communicate something real demands an empathy that speaks to experience on a higher level. If you can't, in some degree of abundance, find analogous material from which you can more clearly communicate your realm of knowledge to the uninitiated then it says something about the true depth of your knowledge. Just as you can't get real depth perception without a plurality of vistas neither can you truly see what you're doing unless you have experience, and thereby the capacity for empathy and making links with that empathy, from far outside of your field of focus.

VaedaStrike 16y ago

"then you've demonstrated that you've not merely mastered the domain but that you have a grasp on a more foundational framework that translates to virtually limitless perspectives" I should have phrased that "not merely grasped" instead of "not merely mastered"

mparke 16y ago

I really like what you've said here. However I'd like to suggest that you've narrowed Mastery quite a bit, The way I see it, proficiency can come with with the ability to guide an alien through the world you understand, but mastery might exist as your very own specific understanding (which when measured against another's mastery might not even be in the same range of comparison ). I might try even argue your point differently, maybe your proficiency represents the ability for you to compare to another person's proficiency in a common subject, which allows you to achieve conciseness when discussing the subject. And your mastery is merely a completely individual experience. Just thinking out loud here. Again well said.