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."
3
1
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!
Sure -- the question is, have you stopped improving at everything relevant to your domain.
I don't practice Arabic anymore, I practice a lot of other things
1