4 ms·

I would say you can learn general problem solving. There are strategies that help with that an IQ helps with finding patterns. That said it still would be juni

by ozim 3y ago

I would say you can learn general problem solving. There are strategies that help with that an IQ helps with finding patterns. That said it still would be junior level problem solving in unknown domain. Expert will always run circles around newcomers. I most likely could switch fields but I don’t want to spend 5 years getting experience. Even if I have decent generic solving skills it might take me less time but still- I would have to be really interested in the topic.

Jensson 3y ago
> Expert will always run circles around newcomers. That isn't true, there are many problems less than mediocre experts fails to solve that a smart junior can manage to solve. Experts are great at common problems but not great at rarer ones, non-standard problems depend more on natural ability than experience. Of course smart experts can also solve those problems, but you didn't say a smart expert, you just said experts in general. The ability to generalize based on experience requires intelligence. That is why you have so many expert programmers who can't solve problems well, because they lack the ability to generalize their experience well enough to apply it to new problems.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >Experts are great at common problems but not great at rarer ones really depends on the field. Tech is such a granular field that you can be an expert in one sub-sub-domain, but not another in the same sub-domain. It really comes down to how specialized you need to be for your work. >non-standard problems depend more on natural ability than experience. non-standard problems tend to build off of some base of standard problems. Computers and computer science as we know them today built off a domain of math and electrical engineering. non-standard problems rely on having enough POV's of the problem space (which can be in the same mind or shared among multiple) to produce a new, novel problem space. Which is usually comprised of experts in at least one of the base problems >The ability to generalize based on experience requires intelligence. I say it merely requires foundational knowledge, which can indeed be taught and studied. The ability to understand how things are put together is the basis of learning, and better foundations make for faster learners. Intelligence in this concept is simply a measure of experience.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > I say it merely requires foundational knowledge, which can indeed be taught and studied. That is what you learn during your education, you can be a fresh junior with much better foundational knowledge than an average expert. Experts have experience in the field which is extremely important, but it solves different kinds of problems they aren't better at everything than a person with good fundamentals and a good mind. > Intelligence in this concept is simply a measure of experience. The ability to apply knowledge is intelligence. Smart people can do more with the same knowledge than dumb people. That is why you see so many say their education was pointless, they never figured out how to apply all that knowledge. Such people are still experts, but there are many kinds of problems that they aren't good at solving.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      >you can be a fresh junior with much better foundational knowledge than an average expert. you can. I wouldn't bet on it unless you had exceptional education from other experts AND were extremely self-motivated to keep pushing yourself. Companies spend millions trying to find such students to mixed results, after all. It's not an easy source to find. May not even be worth finding unless you already have billions in capital. >The ability to apply knowledge is intelligence. If so, it goes against the sentiment that intelligence is innate. your ability to apply knowledge is a product of your experiences and how/if you can connect them to new concepts. All of that is a product of learning and time. that's what makes teachers such an important aspect to this "intelligence". A good teacher helps to connect these pathways so knowledge is stored. But traditional education does not allow for teachers to tailor to everyone's own mental map or experiences. Traditionally "intelligent" people in this case just happen to be people compatible with traditional teaching. (there is also internal self-motivation to learn and practice. But I don't think we disagree that persistence is mechanical practice orthogonal to "intelligence")
- kqr 3y ago
  > Experts are great at common problems but not great at rarer ones, non-standard problems depend more on natural ability than experience. This is quite contrary to the very definition of "expert" in the study of expertise. Experts are recognised, among other things, because they are the people others come to when they are facing unusual and tough problems. You may well have a point, but "expert" is not an appropriate word for what you are talking about.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > Experts are recognised, among other things, because they are the people others come to when they are facing unusual and tough problems. When a person want to make a website, they go to an expert on making websites. That expert doesn't have to be a genius, they just need to be good at making standard websites. Or if that is hard for you to understand, consider what you see as an expert in other fields. When people say "go see an expert", they mean go see a doctor or a psychologist or similar, they don't mean go see the best doctor or the best psychologist, just someone who is trained and experienced in the field. Or if they say "hire an expert" they mean hire someone who has worked on this kind of problem before, not someone who is particularly smart.
    - kqr 3y ago
      Sure, that's the colloquial understanding. In a discussion specifically about learning -- which this is -- it would help if people are more precise with their words. Hence my suggestion to rephrase. What you have in mind are journeymen, not experts.
      - auggierose 3y ago
        So a doctor is a journeyman? It seems you could use an infusion of precision as well.
        kqr 3y ago
        Most doctors, most practitioners in any field, never get higher on their skill tree than journeyman, that is correct. See e.g. the Oxford Handbook of Expertise for more on this. Some doctors are experts. Those are the doctors other doctors come to for advice in tough cases, or the ones that are consistently helpful in grand rounds.
- onion2k 3y ago
  there are many problems less than mediocre experts fails to solve that a smart junior can manage to solve That just means the experts aren't quite as expert as you think they are. If someone's 'expertise' is actively preventing them solving a problem they're applying things they believe or assume, not what they know.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    You are putting too much into the word "expert" here. Experts are just people who can reliably solve standard problems in a field, that is the bar. You pay them to be reliable, not to solve novel problems.
    - kqr 3y ago
      Someone who reliably solves standard problems is a journeyman, not an expert. These terms are fairly well established in the study of skill and expertise, and it helps to use them appropriately.

by ozim 3y ago

Jensson 3y ago

> Expert will always run circles around newcomers. That isn't true, there are many problems less than mediocre experts fails to solve that a smart junior can manage to solve. Experts are great at common problems but not great at rarer ones, non-standard problems depend more on natural ability than experience. Of course smart experts can also solve those problems, but you didn't say a smart expert, you just said experts in general. The ability to generalize based on experience requires intelligence. That is why you have so many expert programmers who can't solve problems well, because they lack the ability to generalize their experience well enough to apply it to new problems.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>Experts are great at common problems but not great at rarer ones really depends on the field. Tech is such a granular field that you can be an expert in one sub-sub-domain, but not another in the same sub-domain. It really comes down to how specialized you need to be for your work. >non-standard problems depend more on natural ability than experience. non-standard problems tend to build off of some base of standard problems. Computers and computer science as we know them today built off a domain of math and electrical engineering. non-standard problems rely on having enough POV's of the problem space (which can be in the same mind or shared among multiple) to produce a new, novel problem space. Which is usually comprised of experts in at least one of the base problems >The ability to generalize based on experience requires intelligence. I say it merely requires foundational knowledge, which can indeed be taught and studied. The ability to understand how things are put together is the basis of learning, and better foundations make for faster learners. Intelligence in this concept is simply a measure of experience.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > I say it merely requires foundational knowledge, which can indeed be taught and studied. That is what you learn during your education, you can be a fresh junior with much better foundational knowledge than an average expert. Experts have experience in the field which is extremely important, but it solves different kinds of problems they aren't better at everything than a person with good fundamentals and a good mind. > Intelligence in this concept is simply a measure of experience. The ability to apply knowledge is intelligence. Smart people can do more with the same knowledge than dumb people. That is why you see so many say their education was pointless, they never figured out how to apply all that knowledge. Such people are still experts, but there are many kinds of problems that they aren't good at solving.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >you can be a fresh junior with much better foundational knowledge than an average expert. you can. I wouldn't bet on it unless you had exceptional education from other experts AND were extremely self-motivated to keep pushing yourself. Companies spend millions trying to find such students to mixed results, after all. It's not an easy source to find. May not even be worth finding unless you already have billions in capital. >The ability to apply knowledge is intelligence. If so, it goes against the sentiment that intelligence is innate. your ability to apply knowledge is a product of your experiences and how/if you can connect them to new concepts. All of that is a product of learning and time. that's what makes teachers such an important aspect to this "intelligence". A good teacher helps to connect these pathways so knowledge is stored. But traditional education does not allow for teachers to tailor to everyone's own mental map or experiences. Traditionally "intelligent" people in this case just happen to be people compatible with traditional teaching. (there is also internal self-motivation to learn and practice. But I don't think we disagree that persistence is mechanical practice orthogonal to "intelligence")
kqr 3y ago
> Experts are great at common problems but not great at rarer ones, non-standard problems depend more on natural ability than experience. This is quite contrary to the very definition of "expert" in the study of expertise. Experts are recognised, among other things, because they are the people others come to when they are facing unusual and tough problems. You may well have a point, but "expert" is not an appropriate word for what you are talking about.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > Experts are recognised, among other things, because they are the people others come to when they are facing unusual and tough problems. When a person want to make a website, they go to an expert on making websites. That expert doesn't have to be a genius, they just need to be good at making standard websites. Or if that is hard for you to understand, consider what you see as an expert in other fields. When people say "go see an expert", they mean go see a doctor or a psychologist or similar, they don't mean go see the best doctor or the best psychologist, just someone who is trained and experienced in the field. Or if they say "hire an expert" they mean hire someone who has worked on this kind of problem before, not someone who is particularly smart.
  - kqr 3y ago
    Sure, that's the colloquial understanding. In a discussion specifically about learning -- which this is -- it would help if people are more precise with their words. Hence my suggestion to rephrase. What you have in mind are journeymen, not experts.
    - auggierose 3y ago
      So a doctor is a journeyman? It seems you could use an infusion of precision as well.
      - kqr 3y ago
        Most doctors, most practitioners in any field, never get higher on their skill tree than journeyman, that is correct. See e.g. the Oxford Handbook of Expertise for more on this. Some doctors are experts. Those are the doctors other doctors come to for advice in tough cases, or the ones that are consistently helpful in grand rounds.
onion2k 3y ago
there are many problems less than mediocre experts fails to solve that a smart junior can manage to solve That just means the experts aren't quite as expert as you think they are. If someone's 'expertise' is actively preventing them solving a problem they're applying things they believe or assume, not what they know.
- Jensson 3y ago
  You are putting too much into the word "expert" here. Experts are just people who can reliably solve standard problems in a field, that is the bar. You pay them to be reliable, not to solve novel problems.
  - kqr 3y ago
    Someone who reliably solves standard problems is a journeyman, not an expert. These terms are fairly well established in the study of skill and expertise, and it helps to use them appropriately.