= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Decius comments on Competence in experts: summary - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (28)
Those characteristics aren't static. Consider the development of metallurgy over the last thousand years as an example: during the early development of steel, metalworking had many of the second set of characteristics, and blacksmiths of the time would not be considered experts today (although they would do better than most people).
Those are characteristics of tasks and professions where we should expect that experts exist and have good performance, because many of those characteristics are created along with experts.
The author made that point in the paper! As fields improve, they move from the right to the left of the table.
I misunderstood- I thought that is was a way to determine how well experts would perform in a field, based on those characteristics.
One could also read it as a way to determine if experts exist in a field, based on those characteristics.