You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on A quick heuristic for evaluating elites (or anyone else) - Less Wrong Discussion

4 [deleted] 23 February 2015 04:22PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (19)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: ChristianKl 23 February 2015 05:35:15PM 3 points [-]

Military generals aren't called generals because they are specialists. People at the top need to be generalists to delegate individual issues to whatever specialist is best able to handle them.

Thus, someone who has excellent people skills but does not like learning technical details would not see the most success (only a middling level) as a used car salesperson, or any technical product salesperson and would rather be providing sales training, communication training services, courses, consulting, writing books.

Teaching and negotiating are both people skills but they aren't the same skill. There are people who aren't good at teaching but who are good at selling.

Comment author: Jiro 23 February 2015 06:32:19PM 9 points [-]

Military generals aren't called generals because they are specialists.

This is true only in the sense that they aren't called generals because they are pianos.

I hate argument-by-folk-etymology. From Wikipedia:

The adjective general had been affixed to officer designations since the late medieval period to indicate relative superiority or an extended jurisdiction.