4 ms·

My statement is based on personal experiences -- it's an observation and not an authoritative fact; I don't have formal studies to back this up. A really great

My statement is based on personal experiences -- it's an observation and not an authoritative fact; I don't have formal studies to back this up. A really great solution from a new perspective is admittedly rare when you take into account all tasks. However, when there's a problem that's been giving a group some difficulty, I've had many occasions where the new person who was coming from a different background, provided a key advance. It was usually along the lines of something we all thought was either too simple to try, "known" to not work, or just went against all the standard methods we had been taught (like the anecdotal example you provided). In the context of the article, having minimal knowledge (just enough to understand the problem), also affords you with the opportunity to learn more on your own and develop your own views before someone tells you how to think. While I can't back it up with level of evidence you're asking for, in my experience it's still a good strategy to go with. I realize this is drifting away from the original topic. Sorry about that.

dalke 13y ago
As I pointed out though, without some sense of what "many" means, it's not possible to make an effective planning decision based on this hypothesis. For example, what's the bias error? How many new problems are solved daily by people with expertise in the field, which would take someone without that expertise a long time? This is also different than the class of problems I think you're referring to, which are cases where the experts in the fields are already stymied. Even then, you might not notice the ones where someone with 15 years of experience figures it out, because you expect that to happen, while if an intern solves it then it's notable. At the point where the group is stuck, dead in the water on a problem, then it's definitely useful to have others look on it, if only because there isn't much to lose by doing so.
- molbioguy 13y ago
  Not quite sure what you mean by "planning decision". Do mean actively recruiting people with backgrounds and knowledge that are substantially different from your existing group? Do you mean from the individual's point of view whether or not to learn as much information as possible and become an "expert" before contributing? I'm assuming you have minimally sufficient knowledge of your field, otherwise you wouldn't have been hired in the first place. I'm just saying that it can sometimes be advantageous not to spend all your time learning as much as possible about the way things are normally done at your new job/activity and approach the job from your own strengths and knowledge. In that way you may surprise yourself and others with solutions that they hadn't thought of because they couldn't see outside their box. You will become an expert eventually (if you want), but you may delay contributing if you wait until you reach that status before trying. And although you may look foolish or stupid if your naive idea was wrong, in my experience you don't get fired for trying. You just get embarrassed and then spend your time steeping yourself in the field's dogma :) It's just an observation ...
  - dalke 13y ago
    By "planning decision" I mean to use this knowledge to make a decision which is more likely to lead to a successful project. Consider the converse to your statement: It can sometimes be advantageous to spend all your time learning as much as possible about the way things are normally done while approaching the job from your own strengths and knowledge. It seems that that converse statement is equally true. If a statement and its converse seem equally true, then how useful of a statement is it? "you may delay contributing if you wait until you reach that status before trying" Certainly. However, contributing is also an important part of learning, and you are unlikely to get to expert status if you delay in contributing.
    - molbioguy 13y ago
      By "planning decision" I mean to use this knowledge to make a decision which is more likely to lead to a successful project. Sorry, still not clear to me what you mean. Please clarify. Consider the converse to your statement: It can sometimes be advantageous to spend all your time learning as much as possible about the way things are normally done while approaching the job from your own strengths and knowledge. Nope. The converse of what I said would be: It can sometimes be advantageous to spend all your time learning as much as possible about the way things are normally done before trying to contribute to projects. "you may delay contributing if you wait until you reach that status before trying" Certainly. However, contributing is also an important part of learning, and you are unlikely to get to expert status if you delay in contributing. Yes, exactly. Fits with what I'm saying. I'm sure you'll have something to say, so I'll leave you to have the last say. Thanks for the discussion.
      - dalke 13y ago
        I'm not sure how I can clarify in another way, sorry. Cheers.

dalke 13y ago

As I pointed out though, without some sense of what "many" means, it's not possible to make an effective planning decision based on this hypothesis. For example, what's the bias error? How many new problems are solved daily by people with expertise in the field, which would take someone without that expertise a long time? This is also different than the class of problems I think you're referring to, which are cases where the experts in the fields are already stymied. Even then, you might not notice the ones where someone with 15 years of experience figures it out, because you expect that to happen, while if an intern solves it then it's notable. At the point where the group is stuck, dead in the water on a problem, then it's definitely useful to have others look on it, if only because there isn't much to lose by doing so.

molbioguy 13y ago
Not quite sure what you mean by "planning decision". Do mean actively recruiting people with backgrounds and knowledge that are substantially different from your existing group? Do you mean from the individual's point of view whether or not to learn as much information as possible and become an "expert" before contributing? I'm assuming you have minimally sufficient knowledge of your field, otherwise you wouldn't have been hired in the first place. I'm just saying that it can sometimes be advantageous not to spend all your time learning as much as possible about the way things are normally done at your new job/activity and approach the job from your own strengths and knowledge. In that way you may surprise yourself and others with solutions that they hadn't thought of because they couldn't see outside their box. You will become an expert eventually (if you want), but you may delay contributing if you wait until you reach that status before trying. And although you may look foolish or stupid if your naive idea was wrong, in my experience you don't get fired for trying. You just get embarrassed and then spend your time steeping yourself in the field's dogma :) It's just an observation ...
- dalke 13y ago
  By "planning decision" I mean to use this knowledge to make a decision which is more likely to lead to a successful project. Consider the converse to your statement: It can sometimes be advantageous to spend all your time learning as much as possible about the way things are normally done while approaching the job from your own strengths and knowledge. It seems that that converse statement is equally true. If a statement and its converse seem equally true, then how useful of a statement is it? "you may delay contributing if you wait until you reach that status before trying" Certainly. However, contributing is also an important part of learning, and you are unlikely to get to expert status if you delay in contributing.
  - molbioguy 13y ago
    By "planning decision" I mean to use this knowledge to make a decision which is more likely to lead to a successful project. Sorry, still not clear to me what you mean. Please clarify. Consider the converse to your statement: It can sometimes be advantageous to spend all your time learning as much as possible about the way things are normally done while approaching the job from your own strengths and knowledge. Nope. The converse of what I said would be: It can sometimes be advantageous to spend all your time learning as much as possible about the way things are normally done before trying to contribute to projects. "you may delay contributing if you wait until you reach that status before trying" Certainly. However, contributing is also an important part of learning, and you are unlikely to get to expert status if you delay in contributing. Yes, exactly. Fits with what I'm saying. I'm sure you'll have something to say, so I'll leave you to have the last say. Thanks for the discussion.
    - dalke 13y ago
      I'm not sure how I can clarify in another way, sorry. Cheers.