JRMayne comments on What are our domains of expertise? A marketplace of insights and issues - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (63)
I'm a prosecutor. This requires... well, it's helped greatly by knowledge of many different subjects, though primarily law.
Mostly, it's just a general ability to absorb large amounts of information and put it together. Cross-examination requires very high-speed sharp thinking and some showtime skills.
I'm sure some would be interested in how criminal law is practiced, but that's more than a post. If you've got specific questions, hey, I'm around.
This is longer.
Bayes' Theorem applies to decayed DNA hits, so that's useful. There's a generally-accepted view that lawyers think differently, but I think there's substantial cross-over from law-thinking to engineering-thinking, at least when it's done right.
In many cases, there are issues that are less technical and more generally psychological; I have only a little special expertise, but I can tell you that the guy who reported his car stolen who is missing his pants had something happen that is not difficult to deduce.
There are many areas where I'm expert enough for my job, but far from expert-expert. I'm quite familiar with collision reconstruction, and my physics background is sufficient to understand the math. I resuscitated some aged accounting knowledge (I wouldn't call it expertise, quite) for a trial a couple years ago.
I know very little biology or medicine; I have to talk to people if there's a technical issue and I don't have enough knowledge to see when something's going wrong.
I don't have any serious problem attending autopsies, or viewing unpleasant photos of violent outcomes, but I find medical stuff really - to use a technical legal term - icky.
--JRM