4 ms·

The author is on to something. I would put a different emphasis. I think higher level expertise tends to not map well to words at all. There are some people who

The author is on to something. I would put a different emphasis. I think higher level expertise tends to not map well to words at all. There are some people who develop an incredible pedagogy, but it is a tiny minority of experts. Frankly, the convo with Herbie isn’t super informative. What they are talking about is necessarily vague.

prox 5y ago
I love this quote by John Cleese “In order to know how good you are at something requires exactly the same skills as it does to be good at that thing in the first place,” Cleese elaborates, “which means — and this is terribly funny — that if you are absolutely no good at something at all, then you lack exactly the skills you need to know that you are absolutely no good at it.”
- mulvya 5y ago
  Of course, that isn't quite true. If the result or outcome of an actvity is publicly observable or measurable, then a secondhand sense of judgement can be developed.
  - anamax 5y ago
    There are multiple definitions of "good at {something}". For example, the n men in the last men's 100m Olympics sprint were not the n men with the best sprint technique. (Some were on both lists, but some weren't.)
nonrandomstring 5y ago
I've come across this before. I call it ineffable knowledge. The expert may know that they know something, yet isn't always able to articulate it. In creative areas like music, cinema and sound design people are able to make extraordinary connections and skilfully master tools (virtuosity) without necessarily being able to explain. With music the skill resides in motor circuits and the nervous system itself which may not be amenable to introspection except in dreams. [1] I first encountered this via analytical knowledge elicitation for making "blackboard" expert systems - the most "talented" experts (who we were trying to learn from) would always say "let me just show you". That's when I realised that the oft repeated phrase "Those who can do, those who can't teach" is possibly the most ill-informed sentiment ever expressed. To teach one needs to be an expert, know that one is an expert, and communicate the nuances to others. It specifically requires that you understand the ways in which your students are not expert in N different ways, for M individual students. As the author describes, there's a point where vocabulary and 'vista' means you see and think about things in a qualitatively different way. Someone in the top 1000 is playing a different game than someone in the top 10,000. And each of these is unique because expertise individuates past a certain point. In some sense PhD's are all unique experts in a field of one. This is frustrating if encountering people, say in interviews or debates, and you realise that they are not actually able to grasp what it is you know within some "test/frame" they are trying to apply to you. Whose 'fault' is that? Surely ones own. So the next milestone is learning to see that gap and be a good communicator, A take-away I get from the article is that recruiters are poor at their job because they are not expert enough. Cookie-cutter HR is a bane for business. [1] Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Damasio
hef19898 5y ago
I'd have to look up the book again, which is sitting in a shelf somewhere at home, about knowledge management. In there, if memory serves well, someone says that people who achieved true mastery of a something look like they have no clue whatsoever about said topic. I always understood that in the sense that those people are beyond talking about formalisms (usually the hallmark of "expert", just throw abbreviations and lingo around) and know to a high degree of certainty what they don't know. That being said, I did train /teach supply chain management before in my life. And that showed me that being good in a subject has nothing to do with teaching that subject. EDIT: After having read the essay beginning to end, I'd like to add one more observation: If you are new to a situation and discuss it with the resident expert, you can measure your level of mastery if that discussion of some serious potential challenges end with you, the new guy, saying "Fuck". And the resident expert responds with a slight smile and a nod. Usually, following this revelation that you now have a peer realizing the same issues, the really productive work can start. I love those moments, not the least because they are so damn rare.

prox 5y ago

I love this quote by John Cleese “In order to know how good you are at something requires exactly the same skills as it does to be good at that thing in the first place,” Cleese elaborates, “which means — and this is terribly funny — that if you are absolutely no good at something at all, then you lack exactly the skills you need to know that you are absolutely no good at it.”

mulvya 5y ago
Of course, that isn't quite true. If the result or outcome of an actvity is publicly observable or measurable, then a secondhand sense of judgement can be developed.
- anamax 5y ago
  There are multiple definitions of "good at {something}". For example, the n men in the last men's 100m Olympics sprint were not the n men with the best sprint technique. (Some were on both lists, but some weren't.)

nonrandomstring 5y ago

I've come across this before. I call it ineffable knowledge. The expert may know that they know something, yet isn't always able to articulate it. In creative areas like music, cinema and sound design people are able to make extraordinary connections and skilfully master tools (virtuosity) without necessarily being able to explain. With music the skill resides in motor circuits and the nervous system itself which may not be amenable to introspection except in dreams. [1] I first encountered this via analytical knowledge elicitation for making "blackboard" expert systems - the most "talented" experts (who we were trying to learn from) would always say "let me just show you". That's when I realised that the oft repeated phrase "Those who can do, those who can't teach" is possibly the most ill-informed sentiment ever expressed. To teach one needs to be an expert, know that one is an expert, and communicate the nuances to others. It specifically requires that you understand the ways in which your students are not expert in N different ways, for M individual students. As the author describes, there's a point where vocabulary and 'vista' means you see and think about things in a qualitatively different way. Someone in the top 1000 is playing a different game than someone in the top 10,000. And each of these is unique because expertise individuates past a certain point. In some sense PhD's are all unique experts in a field of one. This is frustrating if encountering people, say in interviews or debates, and you realise that they are not actually able to grasp what it is you know within some "test/frame" they are trying to apply to you. Whose 'fault' is that? Surely ones own. So the next milestone is learning to see that gap and be a good communicator, A take-away I get from the article is that recruiters are poor at their job because they are not expert enough. Cookie-cutter HR is a bane for business. [1] Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Damasio

hef19898 5y ago

I'd have to look up the book again, which is sitting in a shelf somewhere at home, about knowledge management. In there, if memory serves well, someone says that people who achieved true mastery of a something look like they have no clue whatsoever about said topic. I always understood that in the sense that those people are beyond talking about formalisms (usually the hallmark of "expert", just throw abbreviations and lingo around) and know to a high degree of certainty what they don't know. That being said, I did train /teach supply chain management before in my life. And that showed me that being good in a subject has nothing to do with teaching that subject. EDIT: After having read the essay beginning to end, I'd like to add one more observation: If you are new to a situation and discuss it with the resident expert, you can measure your level of mastery if that discussion of some serious potential challenges end with you, the new guy, saying "Fuck". And the resident expert responds with a slight smile and a nod. Usually, following this revelation that you now have a peer realizing the same issues, the really productive work can start. I love those moments, not the least because they are so damn rare.