Fun inversion from Thorndike (1921). The normal angle is: "Why are some people so much better at some things? What are the limits of expertise?" He reframes to: "Why do most people remain so mediocre at things they spend their whole lives doing?"
andymatuschak.org/files/papers/T (p. 178)
Conversation
You can tell he's kind of mad about it (particularly see the following page here). I find this a bit odd. In many of the more mundane cases he cites (e.g. handwriting) it probably is sensible to reach some threshold and just stay there!
5
2
19
But he also cites decision-making as a common "plateau" skill. That's probably worth improving at for many people! It makes me want to add an entry to his list of possible explanations: it may not be obvious that radical improvement is possible.
3
2
37
You know what virtuosic pianists sound like, so when you play, you'll naturally compare to those mental recordings (and feel painfully how much improvement is possible)! Military officers are trained to make strategic and decisive decisions, but that’s much less salient!
2
1
16
OK, Silicon Valley types often read The Art of War etc. Not sure to what extent that approximates officer training!
But if you're a small business owner, I suspect that Decision-Making, as an abstract skill, wouldn’t normally appear on the “skill weightlifting” menu.
6
16
So to create opportunities for expert action, it's necessary not only to enable higher levels of performance, but also to increase the salience that radical improvement is possible/desirable. It may also be necessary to structure new contexts which demand that level of expertise!
4
6
40
Why *radical* improvement though? Radical makes it seem less achievable
1
Why *not* radical improvement? Where else are we going to get the Sistine Chapel ceilings?
1
1
1
I guess we're focusing on different segments: you emphasize the 20% that's actually going to paint masterpieces and I pointed out the 80% that would likely never get there.
1
1