Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ability to see expertise is a milestone worth aiming for (2022)

commoncog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 177 posts

Re: Ability to see expertise is a milestone worth aiming for (2022)

#81

Post by xyzelement »

krisoft wrote: post #74
xyzelement wrote: post #71

Not directly related to the article but I had two amusing encounters with expertise recently. I sat next to an Econ professor (at an Ivy) on a flight. I told him I had worked at a hedge fund, and he was like "wow, I could never put myself in a situation where my living depended on my economic theories being right." A good friend of mine is a kinda-famous evolutionary biologist. He's in his mid-40s now, unmarried and…

I see zero problem with having no children and studying evolution. You don’t need to become superconductive to study the physics of superconductivity. You don’t need to become infected by every virus to study virology, and you definietly don’t need to be a virus to be a good virologist. So why would you need to pass on your genes to study evolution?

// So why would you need to pass on your genes to study evolution?

You can study whatever you want, I am questioning if you can be considered "expert" if you profoundly fail at the topic of your field.

Re: Ability to see expertise is a milestone worth aiming for (2022)

#82

Post by xyzelement »

nouveaux wrote: post #76
xyzelement wrote: post #71

Not directly related to the article but I had two amusing encounters with expertise recently. I sat next to an Econ professor (at an Ivy) on a flight. I told him I had worked at a hedge fund, and he was like "wow, I could never put myself in a situation where my living depended on my economic theories being right." A good friend of mine is a kinda-famous evolutionary biologist. He's in his mid-40s now, unmarried and…

In the case of the economist, he may have the best theories but it doesn't mean it's correct. He is likely saying his theories have too much uncertainties. In the case of the evolutionary biologist, successful procreation does not require any knowledge of biology. When it comes to planes, there is a high correlation between the quality of the plane and the quality of the design.

// successful procreation does not require any knowledge of biology.

Maybe this is a good point. I would argue that a high school kid who knocks up his girlfriend has demonstrated a better intuitive grasp of biology than my PhD friend.

Re: Ability to see expertise is a milestone worth aiming for (2022)

#83

Post by rvba »

jiggawatts wrote: post #37
thesumofall wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is this really the point of the article? The article argues that it is difficult to identify expertise. However, the situation you describe is one where (if I read you correctly) not your expertise was questioned but your recommendation. If there wasn’t any tangible difference between the CTO’s and your suggested course of action on a metric that he as a customer cared about, then maybe his proposal was indeed th…

I'm finding this entire line of discussion incredibly curious because not only does it confirm my original argument and the that of the article, but it hammers the point home. Everything you've just said is gibberish to a master. It's like making a straight-faced argument that setting the speed limit to 1 mph on a motorway might make perfect sense, and the traffic engineer is actually at fault for not making it clear…

The person who was talking about this optimization should know that they should provide context.

Do they work for a high frequency trading firm? Do they make a CRUD app which has few users and (as much as I hate that) "they can wait even 5 seconds".

If the person does not give context then they dont explain well..

On a side note: for me the problem seems to be not the speed, but the choke point - just 2 servers (with no redudancy?). What one or both go down?

Re: Ability to see expertise is a milestone worth aiming for (2022)

#84

Post by Qwertious »

xyzelement wrote: post #71

Not directly related to the article but I had two amusing encounters with expertise recently. I sat next to an Econ professor (at an Ivy) on a flight. I told him I had worked at a hedge fund, and he was like "wow, I could never put myself in a situation where my living depended on my economic theories being right." A good friend of mine is a kinda-famous evolutionary biologist. He's in his mid-40s now, unmarried and…

>what does it mean to be one of the world's leading experts on "evolutionary biology" and yet completely fail to pass your own genes?

It means he sees the difference between a biological imperative and a moral imperative - who says he's "supposed" to pass on his genes? A strand of deoxyribonucleic acid? Is this judgement exhibited exclusively by proteins, or can a chunk of plastic also judge you for not knocking a girl up?

Re: Ability to see expertise is a milestone worth aiming for (2022)

#85

Post by sharkbot »

xyzelement wrote: post #82
nouveaux wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of the economist, he may have the best theories but it doesn't mean it's correct. He is likely saying his theories have too much uncertainties. In the case of the evolutionary biologist, successful procreation does not require any knowledge of biology. When it comes to planes, there is a high correlation between the quality of the plane and the quality of the design.

// successful procreation does not require any knowledge of biology. Maybe this is a good point. I would argue that a high school kid who knocks up his girlfriend has demonstrated a better intuitive grasp of biology than my PhD friend.

Just to be clear, there are many aspects of biology that that professor is ignoring on a regular basis that you’ve elided (hibernation, molting, limb regeneration, etc). What specifically about procreation is important enough to call that individual’s expertise into question?

Re: Ability to see expertise is a milestone worth aiming for (2022)

#86

Post by rvba »

giantg2 wrote: post #42
jiggawatts wrote: post #2

This is an extremely important article to read for professionals of all sorts, not just freelancers. It's an issue that I struggle with nearly daily. I can't convince customers to pay me what I'm worth, because they can't judge my true value. Meanwhile, they'll happily pay Deloitte or Accenture 3x as much as what I charge, and then take the misguided ramblings of a junior-sold-as-senior at face value, not knowing the…

"take the misguided ramblings of a junior-sold-as-senior at face value, not knowing the difference" Based on my experiences, I'm throughly convinced that most of the time the consultants will tell management what they want to hear. If management doesn't like the answer then they go to someone else. How likely it is that they will accept an unwanted opinion from a consultant is solely based on prestige.

One thing are presentations, other thing is actuall stuff build by 'juniors sold as seniors'.

Read all the horror stories of shitty software or ERP implementations. Often it is the consultant's fault - since they are technically weak.

Re: Ability to see expertise is a milestone worth aiming for (2022)

#87

Post by bena »

parpfish wrote: post #72

This seems like a factor in Dunning-Krueger. Experts can see all the gradients in ability and will extrapolate how far they are from the top, but all novices know is how far they are from the bottom. If those distance estimates are biased, it’d lead to novices overestimating ability and experts underestimating

Dunning-Kruger is more of a statistical effect than a psychological one. The same graphs can be reproduced using random noise.

Re: Ability to see expertise is a milestone worth aiming for (2022)

#88

Post by bena »

xyzelement wrote: post #81
krisoft wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see zero problem with having no children and studying evolution. You don’t need to become superconductive to study the physics of superconductivity. You don’t need to become infected by every virus to study virology, and you definietly don’t need to be a virus to be a good virologist. So why would you need to pass on your genes to study evolution?

// So why would you need to pass on your genes to study evolution? You can study whatever you want, I am questioning if you can be considered "expert" if you profoundly fail at the topic of your field.

How does not having kids cause you to be a failure at evolutionary biology?

Re: Ability to see expertise is a milestone worth aiming for (2022)

#89

Post by msp_yc »

xyzelement wrote: post #71

Not directly related to the article but I had two amusing encounters with expertise recently. I sat next to an Econ professor (at an Ivy) on a flight. I told him I had worked at a hedge fund, and he was like "wow, I could never put myself in a situation where my living depended on my economic theories being right." A good friend of mine is a kinda-famous evolutionary biologist. He's in his mid-40s now, unmarried and…

As much as I don't care for the adage, "those who can, do; those who don't, teach" fits here :)

Re: Ability to see expertise is a milestone worth aiming for (2022)

#90

Post by booleandilemma »

xyzelement wrote: post #71

Not directly related to the article but I had two amusing encounters with expertise recently. I sat next to an Econ professor (at an Ivy) on a flight. I told him I had worked at a hedge fund, and he was like "wow, I could never put myself in a situation where my living depended on my economic theories being right." A good friend of mine is a kinda-famous evolutionary biologist. He's in his mid-40s now, unmarried and…

I only trust biology teachers with three kids at a minimum.
Post reply on HN