this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
4 points (100.0% liked)
Hacker News
2171 readers
1 users here now
A mirror of Hacker News' best submissions.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's a better approach: experts can show you the road, imitators can't. Everything else is a consequence of that fact.
Let me start saying that "second-hand knowledge" is an oxymoron. You don't get to know something because someone told you so; you're fooling yourself dammit. The only way to get knowledge is to build it yourself, based on experiences and logical (i.e. not fallacious) reasoning.
And what distinguishes experts from everyone else - including imitators - is that experts know it. As such, if you want to identify an expert, look at their ability*¹ to show the reasoning and experiences necessary to reach a certain conclusion. Imitators won't be able*¹ to do so, but they'll still claim expertise.
Note how this summarises a lot of points within the text: imitators being unable to answer questions at a deeper level, adapt their vocab*², or to know the limits of their expertise.
Two points that I disagree with:
There are two implicit assumptions here that makes this point completely rubbish:
So no, you shouldn't use frustration as a guide to "is this an expert, or an imitator?".
This one is more like a half-disagree. Sure, experts know that failure is part of the learning process; but they still have three faces to keep (towards the general public, towards their closed ones, and towards themselves), and talking about failures is bound to hurt at least two of those faces.
Notes: