10 ms·

Circle of Competence: Avoid Ambiguity Traps

170 points by remotists 6y ago

lowmemcpu 6y ago
I also read yesterday's post from the same author, but neither article is really a mental model (despite that being the subject of the entire blog), and they aren't particularly informative enough to be on the frontpage for the blog's first two posts? If you upvoted this one, what am I missing that you liked about it?
- dqpb 6y ago
  I didn't upvote this, as this is just some guys heuristic. But, I find the exploration vs exploitation mental model useful. There is theory behind it (which is used in reinforcement learning): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit
m3kw9 6y ago
Sounds about right, also is to notice earlier the better
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
WillDaSilva 6y ago
This way of thinking presupposes that not being (highly) competent at whatever it is you're doing is losing (or will lead to losing) in some form. Maybe this is true in some environments, but I don't think it's generally true, or particularly valuable life advice.
taeric 6y ago
I'm not seeing his this relates to ambiguity traps. What is the trap? In general, I think doubling down in success makes sense versus starting over. Even if it is small success. But, most people making drastic changes probably aren't doing so by choice alone. Are they?
monkeydust 6y ago
interesting - runs contrary (to the most part) - of The Range which I read recently (https://amzn.to/3dCTqcE https://amzn.to/3dCTqcE). There is something to be said on focussing though, to easy to get distracted.
agentdrtran 6y ago
This assumes your objective of learning different skills is to be financially successful, no?
leto_ii 6y ago
I have to say I find the way of thinking presented in this article to be wrong in a fundamental way. I realize that this is (more or less) how we're all brought up to think about our place in the world, but I have come to see it as a very destructive way of self-development. > The idea behind this model is to focus on your strengths that you are either born with or something you have developed over the years instead of investing time and resources on trying to do anything and everything for the sake of it. Why should my life be centered on the 'thing I'm good at'? What does that even mean? Is it the thing I like to do and that makes me happy, or the thing that can bring me money? Since the common understanding (I think) points more towards the latter interpretation, is this a desirable way to live your life, or to expect others to live their lives? Should we all be efficient production machines where our efficiency is dictated by whatever the economic needs of the moment are? > Focussing [sic] on your strengths does not imply that you need to avoid exploring other areas, but it is rather about not letting those other areas take away too much time and resources that could be better utilised on your strengths. How does such self-optimization relate to the aspiration of living a free life? > Focussing [sic] will help you accumulate experience and knowledge in a particular domain giving you an almost unfair advantage over others who are much more scattered in their approach in the field. Why should you aim to have an unfair advantage over anybody? More so, what happens if industry trends shift and it turns out you specialized on the 'wrong' thing (e.g. you're the best mainframe programmer, but the PC revolution has come)?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jakemal 6y ago
  You seem to be incorrectly applying this article as advice on self development and then making an argument against that. The author isn't suggesting that this is the way to achieve true happiness. They are suggesting that this is a good strategy to become the best at something, regardless of why you want to be the best at it (financial benefit, personal fulfillment, etc.). > More so, what happens if industry trends shift and it turns out you specialized on the 'wrong' thing What's the alternative to this? Remain mediocre at a number of skills just in case one of them go out of style? If you want to be the best at something, specialize in that thing but keep a pulse on the direction the field is moving and adapt as needed. The world's best mainframe developer probably won't immediately be the world's best PC developer upon switching, but they will be far from starting from square one.
padiyar83 6y ago
Book - Range by David Epstein - covers this topic really well. The book shows how expanding into neighboring areas increases your performance in your chosen field itself. [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PHLNR28/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PHLNR28/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
priyaaank 6y ago
There are several diverse viewpoints on this. One aspect is that being excellent at one thing is hard. Be really good at two things. And thats how you will stand out because it is the fusion of two skils that makes you unique. First: Some advice on this by Scott Adams. https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/career-advice.html https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/car... I love this one. Also a book that pretty much centers around the same point. I think the book itself is a great read. And I recommend it. https://www.amazon.com/Medici-Effect-Elephants-Epidemics-Innovation/dp/1515959341 https://www.amazon.com/Medici-Effect-Elephants-Epidemics-Inn... And then there is a quote by Robert Anson Heinlein, if you want to take it to heart and live on other extreme. By no means it is a career advice but surely an interesting take. A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
- chosenbreed37 6y ago
  >"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." That's a brilliant quote
  - rajangdavis 6y ago
    It's from Starship Troopers the book. I really liked it, but it might not be for some.
    - Godel_unicode 6y ago
      No it's not. It's Lazarus Long from Time Enough for Love. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competent_man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competent_man
chadlavi 6y ago
What if your core competence is fucking around and trying out stuff? I'm uh... asking for a friend.
- _jal 6y ago
  The article assumes a serious emphasis on specialization is the only way to "succeed", which is also left undefined. Both of those tell you more about the author than provide any objective advice.
duxup 6y ago
What's the Ambiguity Trap here? That aside I find this more useful when it comes to organizations where momentum is pretty hard to change. I can't tell you how many initiatives I've seen with "We're going to do this now!" and really that group doesn't do that well, is busy not doing that, and just as an organization isn't built to do ... the new thing. The result is inevitable.
rdiddly 6y ago
It all depends on what you want out of life. If you want to stay in one area and go as far as possible, yes I would follow this advice. You'll probably be more "successful" overall. But I was never that type of person; I've always been pulled in several directions. So I've sequentially focused on each of those, and made shorter careers out of each. Of course I haven't gotten as far in each, because there just isn't time. And I've struggled harder, stepping into new areas and being a beginner over and over. But it can't help but make you stronger and more of a person overall, or at least I like to tell myself that. Every minute Willard sits in that room he gets weaker, while every minute Charlie squats in the bush he gets stronger! And there still end up being weird little synergies sometimes, where something unrelated nonetheless applies in an unexpected way, usually on more of a metaphorical or symbolic level, that gives some insight. I should say I've basically still been honoring my 3 or 4 main circles, plural, of competency, i.e. I still pursued things for which I had aptitude and interest, and not totally random ones!
TrackerFF 6y ago
You know, it's a hard pattern to break out of. For me, I've always worked the hardest on the things I've failed the hardest at. Failing motivates me to try more - even if I only achieve supbar results after not failing. In my later years, I've become better at being selective about these things. I try not to spend too much resources on things I know will not mater, or bring me any more happiness.
seanwilson 6y ago
Is Ambiguity Trap defined somewhere?
- awinter-py 6y ago
  author left it ambiguous for effect
non-entity 6y ago
And what if said strengths are deemed worthless by the market?
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  That can change at any moment. Being good at video games was worthless until Twitch and eSports.
- alexashka 6y ago
  Depends on whether you were born an aristocrat or a pleb.
SubiculumCode 6y ago
Interesting article. Then I cam across the term "man management" in the article. Is that a real thing, or a typo?
- asciimo 6y ago
  Yeah, that knocked me off balance, too. But it's a thing, if antiquated: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/man-management https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/man-...
jancsika 6y ago
A piano teacher my junior year of high school had me do exercises I didn't understand. A teacher in my college audition heard the result of those lessons and started me down another path of exercises. Essentially, the one teacher had communicated certain skills through me to the next teacher without my knowledge. During one particular lesson my junior year of college, everything clicked and I began to play a melody with more control and direction. It was only at that moment that I could hear and feel the result of those exercises. Furthermore, that teacher later speculated about the lessons my previous teacher had taught me. That speculation lined up pretty well with what I remembered of the exercises she gave me. And it was only then that I understood the efficacy of those lessons toward connecting a melodic line on the piano. That's about 4 1/2 years and two mentors setting me toward developing a skill (in addition to others, granted), the process of which I didn't really understand for another half year after that. And that's the best case of someone willing to do what seems like arbitrary work, and lacking the skills at the time to rationalize persuasive reasons to avoid doing that work. In my experience adult students are experts at talking themselves into the skills they think they already have, and talking themselves out of the will to learn new ones. So without a decent mentor I'd speculate most people are hopelessly incompetent at assessing their circle of competence. Or at least they are if we widen the circle from "getting ahead in business" to "life."
- dhosek 6y ago
  There's a lot of this in mathematics education. Unfortunately, a lot of math teachers don't realize themselves the importance of the things that they're setting up in students' education. Having been through the educational process for getting a secondary math education certification, it felt like too much of this was left implicit. Worse still, there were cases like in abstract algebra where students would do exercises on the group a+b\sqrt(-2) without any indication of the significance that this would play later in the algebra course. Heck, high school algebra, I think students learning that being able to solve for x in ax+b=c equations turns into a goal or transforming more complex problems into that simpler problem.
  - lmkg 6y ago
    My advisor for my math degree told me straight-up "You don't really understand a math course until you take the next class in the series." I'm really glad he told me that, because it sharpened my perception of how well I understood different subjects. It also shaped which classes I took for the rest of college, tending towards depth over breadth. Too many students think that math is just an arbitrary collection of arbitrary steps. It all makes sense, but you have to have at least one teacher contextualize it for you in order for all of it to click.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dqpb 6y ago
Reinforcement Learning takes a principled approach to analyzing the exploration/exploitation trade-off. If you're interested in using this knowledge to manipulate your behavior, I recommend learning a little theory before letting internet wisdom dissuade you from exploring.
btilly 6y ago
For a book-length exposition on this theme, read https://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-Rules-Differently/dp/1531865208 https://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-Rules-Differently/dp/.... The book didn't intend to be a book-length exposition. But the common insight that they found among good managers is that people come lop-sided. They have strengths and weaknesses that they aren't going to change. When you try to make people work on their weaknesses, you're virtually guaranteed to fail and make them miserable in the process. But instead figure out how to tailor their jobs to their talents and they will outperform. If you can pair up people with complementary talents, the combination will do much better than either person could on their own. The book then includes example after example from industry after industry. For everything from housekeeping in a hotel to being a bartender to data entry. For each of these jobs, there are people whose talents will make them ridiculously better at it. (Side note. That is the only management book that I recommend to non-managers.)
hcarvalhoalves 6y ago
I believe this way of thinking is an (ocidental?) cultural bias - "god gave you talent", "you're the chosen one", "your fate is sealed". In other cultures (Korea/Japan, at least?) it seems it's more common to attribute success to hard work and mentoring and less on innate abilities. You can't walk into a dojo and just tell the sensei "Mom said I'm very talented - please give me a black belt", you have to put in the work like everybody else. I wonder how much that shapes people's perception of what they can do, motivation, etc.
- culopatin 6y ago
  This article promotes fixed mindset, if you follow it and you think you have no natural abilities, you’re set as a failure for the rest of your life.
Dowwie 6y ago
When I first started running outdoors for exercise, I couldn't run a mile. I was in really poor physical condition. 5 days a week, I'd go outside and do whatever I could, stopping as my heart rate demanded. I was really bad at running. My form was poor. I was overweight. Yet, I persisted. I learned how to celebrate small victories. Successes slowly compounded. I persevered. I kept training and improving. A few years passed and I successfully finished my first marathon. I was slow as molasses and stopped a lot after mile 20. I was one of the heavier finishers that day, too. I also raised 3 grand for the Leukemia Lymphoma Society in the process (Team in Training). My colleagues were shocked to find out what I did, and it inspired at least one to sign up and give it a try. What I learned about myself from running is that I had the capacity to go far beyond limits that my mind sets for me. The more familiar I became with physical and mental pain, the more I learned how to manage the urge to quit -- stopping before injury most of the time. I've experienced this process of development in other aspects of my life and career. It never feels easier to do something that I'm not good at, but I know how to deal with a strong urge to quit and do something else. For a long while, I haven't improved as a runner, running only 3-4 miles a session. Instead, I keep my perseverance reserve for my work, where I've spent years doing work that has been very outside of my comfort zone, compounding one small success at a time. I have been far from the best at what I've done, but boy do I have a long line of accomplishments that I am proud of. If you want to grow as a person, try moving outside of your circle of competence and grow the circle. It's not about achieving more than everyone else. It's about doing what your former self wouldn't. Do it enough times and you may one day find that moving beyond your comfort zone is a strength.
z5h 6y ago
Work on what you can't stop thinking about. You'll get good at that.
nickthemagicman 6y ago
One interesting about being in the technology field, is that it can make you better in any sphere, as you can pick up the software quicker or write code to make things better, or simply can technically analyze things as a strength. Also, project planning and dealing with abstract ideas. Tech is crazy in that it enhances you in a lot of areas that apply in numerous ways in the modern world.
mips_avatar 6y ago
Some skills are facilitating skills, and they come back to bite you if you don't sufficiently master them. For me, writing was always massive source of frustration. Not knowing how to write persuasively has limited me in my career. I've hired a writing tutor, which I hope helps me.
blintz 6y ago
Is it me, or is this a rather depressing way to view oneself? > Focussing on your strengths does not imply that you need to avoid exploring other areas, but it is rather about not letting those other areas take away too much time and resources that could be better utilised on your strengths. I think that there is something especially rewarding in pursuing an activity at which you lack natural talent. It teaches very important lessons about hard work, makes you question yourself, and can help you be less arrogant. I think sometimes, it can actually be far less of a waste of time than pouring more hours into something you already very well. The best thing I ever did was take classes outside of CS in college - I quickly realized I could not skate by in linguistics or writing classes. My proudest academic achievement is probably a B- in a grad linguistics class I took. A nice article that explains this better than I can: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/smarter-living/the-case-for-hobbies-ideas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/smarter-living/the-case-f... Of course, these feelings could just be a rationalization for a 'dabbler' complex, it's hard to tell.
droctothorpe 6y ago
> Another example could be switching to a career at 30 years old when you do not have the required social skills. You are better off focussing your efforts on a career that you will thrive in as an introvert while at the same time giving some room to improve on your social skills without making it your focus. Trying to put all your chips on a career based on a skill that you have not mastered or you struggle with is not the smartest bet to make. This could have been written about me. I'm a software engineer who switched careers (from filmmaking) at 30. One of the best decisions I ever made. I love my job. I'm good at it. I have more (hard-earned) people skills than your average developer, but I'm fundamentally an introvert, and love my distraction-free IC time.

170 points by remotists 6y ago

I also read yesterday's post from the same author, but neither article is really a mental model (despite that being the subject of the entire blog), and they aren't particularly informative enough to be on the frontpage for the blog's first two posts? If you upvoted this one, what am I missing that you liked about it?

dqpb 6y ago
I didn't upvote this, as this is just some guys heuristic. But, I find the exploration vs exploitation mental model useful. There is theory behind it (which is used in reinforcement learning): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit

m3kw9 6y ago

Sounds about right, also is to notice earlier the better

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

WillDaSilva 6y ago

This way of thinking presupposes that not being (highly) competent at whatever it is you're doing is losing (or will lead to losing) in some form. Maybe this is true in some environments, but I don't think it's generally true, or particularly valuable life advice.

taeric 6y ago

I'm not seeing his this relates to ambiguity traps. What is the trap? In general, I think doubling down in success makes sense versus starting over. Even if it is small success. But, most people making drastic changes probably aren't doing so by choice alone. Are they?

monkeydust 6y ago

interesting - runs contrary (to the most part) - of The Range which I read recently (https://amzn.to/3dCTqcE https://amzn.to/3dCTqcE). There is something to be said on focussing though, to easy to get distracted.

agentdrtran 6y ago

This assumes your objective of learning different skills is to be financially successful, no?

leto_ii 6y ago

I have to say I find the way of thinking presented in this article to be wrong in a fundamental way. I realize that this is (more or less) how we're all brought up to think about our place in the world, but I have come to see it as a very destructive way of self-development. > The idea behind this model is to focus on your strengths that you are either born with or something you have developed over the years instead of investing time and resources on trying to do anything and everything for the sake of it. Why should my life be centered on the 'thing I'm good at'? What does that even mean? Is it the thing I like to do and that makes me happy, or the thing that can bring me money? Since the common understanding (I think) points more towards the latter interpretation, is this a desirable way to live your life, or to expect others to live their lives? Should we all be efficient production machines where our efficiency is dictated by whatever the economic needs of the moment are? > Focussing [sic] on your strengths does not imply that you need to avoid exploring other areas, but it is rather about not letting those other areas take away too much time and resources that could be better utilised on your strengths. How does such self-optimization relate to the aspiration of living a free life? > Focussing [sic] will help you accumulate experience and knowledge in a particular domain giving you an almost unfair advantage over others who are much more scattered in their approach in the field. Why should you aim to have an unfair advantage over anybody? More so, what happens if industry trends shift and it turns out you specialized on the 'wrong' thing (e.g. you're the best mainframe programmer, but the PC revolution has come)?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jakemal 6y ago
You seem to be incorrectly applying this article as advice on self development and then making an argument against that. The author isn't suggesting that this is the way to achieve true happiness. They are suggesting that this is a good strategy to become the best at something, regardless of why you want to be the best at it (financial benefit, personal fulfillment, etc.). > More so, what happens if industry trends shift and it turns out you specialized on the 'wrong' thing What's the alternative to this? Remain mediocre at a number of skills just in case one of them go out of style? If you want to be the best at something, specialize in that thing but keep a pulse on the direction the field is moving and adapt as needed. The world's best mainframe developer probably won't immediately be the world's best PC developer upon switching, but they will be far from starting from square one.

padiyar83 6y ago

Book - Range by David Epstein - covers this topic really well. The book shows how expanding into neighboring areas increases your performance in your chosen field itself. [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PHLNR28/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PHLNR28/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...

priyaaank 6y ago

There are several diverse viewpoints on this. One aspect is that being excellent at one thing is hard. Be really good at two things. And thats how you will stand out because it is the fusion of two skils that makes you unique. First: Some advice on this by Scott Adams. https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/career-advice.html https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/car... I love this one. Also a book that pretty much centers around the same point. I think the book itself is a great read. And I recommend it. https://www.amazon.com/Medici-Effect-Elephants-Epidemics-Innovation/dp/1515959341 https://www.amazon.com/Medici-Effect-Elephants-Epidemics-Inn... And then there is a quote by Robert Anson Heinlein, if you want to take it to heart and live on other extreme. By no means it is a career advice but surely an interesting take. A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

chosenbreed37 6y ago
>"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." That's a brilliant quote
- rajangdavis 6y ago
  It's from Starship Troopers the book. I really liked it, but it might not be for some.
  - Godel_unicode 6y ago
    No it's not. It's Lazarus Long from Time Enough for Love. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competent_man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competent_man

chadlavi 6y ago

What if your core competence is fucking around and trying out stuff? I'm uh... asking for a friend.

_jal 6y ago
The article assumes a serious emphasis on specialization is the only way to "succeed", which is also left undefined. Both of those tell you more about the author than provide any objective advice.

duxup 6y ago

What's the Ambiguity Trap here? That aside I find this more useful when it comes to organizations where momentum is pretty hard to change. I can't tell you how many initiatives I've seen with "We're going to do this now!" and really that group doesn't do that well, is busy not doing that, and just as an organization isn't built to do ... the new thing. The result is inevitable.

rdiddly 6y ago

It all depends on what you want out of life. If you want to stay in one area and go as far as possible, yes I would follow this advice. You'll probably be more "successful" overall. But I was never that type of person; I've always been pulled in several directions. So I've sequentially focused on each of those, and made shorter careers out of each. Of course I haven't gotten as far in each, because there just isn't time. And I've struggled harder, stepping into new areas and being a beginner over and over. But it can't help but make you stronger and more of a person overall, or at least I like to tell myself that. Every minute Willard sits in that room he gets weaker, while every minute Charlie squats in the bush he gets stronger! And there still end up being weird little synergies sometimes, where something unrelated nonetheless applies in an unexpected way, usually on more of a metaphorical or symbolic level, that gives some insight. I should say I've basically still been honoring my 3 or 4 main circles, plural, of competency, i.e. I still pursued things for which I had aptitude and interest, and not totally random ones!

TrackerFF 6y ago

You know, it's a hard pattern to break out of. For me, I've always worked the hardest on the things I've failed the hardest at. Failing motivates me to try more - even if I only achieve supbar results after not failing. In my later years, I've become better at being selective about these things. I try not to spend too much resources on things I know will not mater, or bring me any more happiness.

seanwilson 6y ago

Is Ambiguity Trap defined somewhere?

awinter-py 6y ago
author left it ambiguous for effect

non-entity 6y ago

And what if said strengths are deemed worthless by the market?

jonny_eh 6y ago
That can change at any moment. Being good at video games was worthless until Twitch and eSports.
alexashka 6y ago
Depends on whether you were born an aristocrat or a pleb.

SubiculumCode 6y ago

Interesting article. Then I cam across the term "man management" in the article. Is that a real thing, or a typo?

asciimo 6y ago
Yeah, that knocked me off balance, too. But it's a thing, if antiquated: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/man-management https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/man-...

jancsika 6y ago

A piano teacher my junior year of high school had me do exercises I didn't understand. A teacher in my college audition heard the result of those lessons and started me down another path of exercises. Essentially, the one teacher had communicated certain skills through me to the next teacher without my knowledge. During one particular lesson my junior year of college, everything clicked and I began to play a melody with more control and direction. It was only at that moment that I could hear and feel the result of those exercises. Furthermore, that teacher later speculated about the lessons my previous teacher had taught me. That speculation lined up pretty well with what I remembered of the exercises she gave me. And it was only then that I understood the efficacy of those lessons toward connecting a melodic line on the piano. That's about 4 1/2 years and two mentors setting me toward developing a skill (in addition to others, granted), the process of which I didn't really understand for another half year after that. And that's the best case of someone willing to do what seems like arbitrary work, and lacking the skills at the time to rationalize persuasive reasons to avoid doing that work. In my experience adult students are experts at talking themselves into the skills they think they already have, and talking themselves out of the will to learn new ones. So without a decent mentor I'd speculate most people are hopelessly incompetent at assessing their circle of competence. Or at least they are if we widen the circle from "getting ahead in business" to "life."

dhosek 6y ago
There's a lot of this in mathematics education. Unfortunately, a lot of math teachers don't realize themselves the importance of the things that they're setting up in students' education. Having been through the educational process for getting a secondary math education certification, it felt like too much of this was left implicit. Worse still, there were cases like in abstract algebra where students would do exercises on the group a+b\sqrt(-2) without any indication of the significance that this would play later in the algebra course. Heck, high school algebra, I think students learning that being able to solve for x in ax+b=c equations turns into a goal or transforming more complex problems into that simpler problem.
- lmkg 6y ago
  My advisor for my math degree told me straight-up "You don't really understand a math course until you take the next class in the series." I'm really glad he told me that, because it sharpened my perception of how well I understood different subjects. It also shaped which classes I took for the rest of college, tending towards depth over breadth. Too many students think that math is just an arbitrary collection of arbitrary steps. It all makes sense, but you have to have at least one teacher contextualize it for you in order for all of it to click.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dqpb 6y ago

Reinforcement Learning takes a principled approach to analyzing the exploration/exploitation trade-off. If you're interested in using this knowledge to manipulate your behavior, I recommend learning a little theory before letting internet wisdom dissuade you from exploring.

btilly 6y ago

For a book-length exposition on this theme, read https://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-Rules-Differently/dp/1531865208 https://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-Rules-Differently/dp/.... The book didn't intend to be a book-length exposition. But the common insight that they found among good managers is that people come lop-sided. They have strengths and weaknesses that they aren't going to change. When you try to make people work on their weaknesses, you're virtually guaranteed to fail and make them miserable in the process. But instead figure out how to tailor their jobs to their talents and they will outperform. If you can pair up people with complementary talents, the combination will do much better than either person could on their own. The book then includes example after example from industry after industry. For everything from housekeeping in a hotel to being a bartender to data entry. For each of these jobs, there are people whose talents will make them ridiculously better at it. (Side note. That is the only management book that I recommend to non-managers.)

hcarvalhoalves 6y ago

I believe this way of thinking is an (ocidental?) cultural bias - "god gave you talent", "you're the chosen one", "your fate is sealed". In other cultures (Korea/Japan, at least?) it seems it's more common to attribute success to hard work and mentoring and less on innate abilities. You can't walk into a dojo and just tell the sensei "Mom said I'm very talented - please give me a black belt", you have to put in the work like everybody else. I wonder how much that shapes people's perception of what they can do, motivation, etc.

culopatin 6y ago
This article promotes fixed mindset, if you follow it and you think you have no natural abilities, you’re set as a failure for the rest of your life.

Dowwie 6y ago

When I first started running outdoors for exercise, I couldn't run a mile. I was in really poor physical condition. 5 days a week, I'd go outside and do whatever I could, stopping as my heart rate demanded. I was really bad at running. My form was poor. I was overweight. Yet, I persisted. I learned how to celebrate small victories. Successes slowly compounded. I persevered. I kept training and improving. A few years passed and I successfully finished my first marathon. I was slow as molasses and stopped a lot after mile 20. I was one of the heavier finishers that day, too. I also raised 3 grand for the Leukemia Lymphoma Society in the process (Team in Training). My colleagues were shocked to find out what I did, and it inspired at least one to sign up and give it a try. What I learned about myself from running is that I had the capacity to go far beyond limits that my mind sets for me. The more familiar I became with physical and mental pain, the more I learned how to manage the urge to quit -- stopping before injury most of the time. I've experienced this process of development in other aspects of my life and career. It never feels easier to do something that I'm not good at, but I know how to deal with a strong urge to quit and do something else. For a long while, I haven't improved as a runner, running only 3-4 miles a session. Instead, I keep my perseverance reserve for my work, where I've spent years doing work that has been very outside of my comfort zone, compounding one small success at a time. I have been far from the best at what I've done, but boy do I have a long line of accomplishments that I am proud of. If you want to grow as a person, try moving outside of your circle of competence and grow the circle. It's not about achieving more than everyone else. It's about doing what your former self wouldn't. Do it enough times and you may one day find that moving beyond your comfort zone is a strength.

z5h 6y ago

Work on what you can't stop thinking about. You'll get good at that.

nickthemagicman 6y ago

One interesting about being in the technology field, is that it can make you better in any sphere, as you can pick up the software quicker or write code to make things better, or simply can technically analyze things as a strength. Also, project planning and dealing with abstract ideas. Tech is crazy in that it enhances you in a lot of areas that apply in numerous ways in the modern world.

mips_avatar 6y ago

Some skills are facilitating skills, and they come back to bite you if you don't sufficiently master them. For me, writing was always massive source of frustration. Not knowing how to write persuasively has limited me in my career. I've hired a writing tutor, which I hope helps me.

blintz 6y ago

Is it me, or is this a rather depressing way to view oneself? > Focussing on your strengths does not imply that you need to avoid exploring other areas, but it is rather about not letting those other areas take away too much time and resources that could be better utilised on your strengths. I think that there is something especially rewarding in pursuing an activity at which you lack natural talent. It teaches very important lessons about hard work, makes you question yourself, and can help you be less arrogant. I think sometimes, it can actually be far less of a waste of time than pouring more hours into something you already very well. The best thing I ever did was take classes outside of CS in college - I quickly realized I could not skate by in linguistics or writing classes. My proudest academic achievement is probably a B- in a grad linguistics class I took. A nice article that explains this better than I can: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/smarter-living/the-case-for-hobbies-ideas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/smarter-living/the-case-f... Of course, these feelings could just be a rationalization for a 'dabbler' complex, it's hard to tell.

droctothorpe 6y ago

> Another example could be switching to a career at 30 years old when you do not have the required social skills. You are better off focussing your efforts on a career that you will thrive in as an introvert while at the same time giving some room to improve on your social skills without making it your focus. Trying to put all your chips on a career based on a skill that you have not mastered or you struggle with is not the smartest bet to make. This could have been written about me. I'm a software engineer who switched careers (from filmmaking) at 30. One of the best decisions I ever made. I love my job. I'm good at it. I have more (hard-earned) people skills than your average developer, but I'm fundamentally an introvert, and love my distraction-free IC time.