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
I can see why he's mad... lowering your standards and giving up on improving is a habit.
1
2
You could call the constant care required to improve a basic work ethic, with low-key anger being the expected response to people who haven't got one.
1
1
Hm. I think this is all a bit too absolute. I do think it's a skill to satisfice, and to prioritize, and to not worry about skills which are "good enough."
eg: I'm quite a fast typist. I haven't worked proactively on typing speed for 15+ years.
I'm pretty sure that typing faster would not help me. I think that recognizing this, and choosing to not improve (and so to focus on other skills instead), is a good.
1
But maybe I'm attacking a strawman here. In the examples Thorndike mentions, the plateaued skills really are a limiting factor. And I really do think it matters that they've stopped improving!
1
1
Show replies
Oh for sure. I tend to share your view about good enough being exactly that in most things, if only because mastery requires focus and focus means saying no to distractions (he says on twitter)
1
That said, bringing more focus to operations that have been on sub-par autopilot for ages seems like a form of meditation, and one that could lead to more generalized expressions of competence.
In that case, focus is on attention itself, not the particular routine.
1