Interesting. If you don't mind noise from behind the curve, as I read that I often thought of fundamentals, aka basics. Heat rises, fire needs oxygen, and however a backdraft works. Pilots have equivalents: air pressure is less around a curved (longer) surface than a straight (shorter) one, and this works vertically and horizontally. Triage doctors have to know fundamentals about the body and trauma types and such. Auto repair, HVAC repair, etc, every true expert knows the fundamentals well, while self-proclaimed or academic "experts" might barely know them at all.
When you know the fundamental facts and principles, a situation will speak to you in ways that might be missed by someone merely choosing options.
And I suppose that if you've learned them long ago, you might unconsciously back-burner them in the adrenaline chaos of a burning building. They should be the reason Klein and the firefighter were able to piece together retrospectively how his "ESP" worked. It seems to me that if the firefighter had merely been weighing options, he might not have guessed right to get out of there, or even if he did, he wouldn't have been much use in figuring out the "ESP".
Sounds right. Experts have a qualitative understanding of a situation which allows them to model causality in a way that Expected Utility would not. This ability to understand causality is partly why they don't have to choose between options but simply see what must be done.
I’ve been thinking a lot about decision-making in relation to prescribing and use of medicines, and this has really helped me integrate some of the ideas I’ve been thinking about it. Actively developing your mental models really helps it makes sense to me - thank you!
I've never read Scott, so I don't know exactly how he uses those terms, but it definitely seems related. Greek has a few different types of knowledge, and I might use the term Episteme to characterize the rational and theoretical knowledge traditionally valorized in academia and our culture more generally. Then expertise might be understood as a combination of phronesis/gnosis. The term techne is a little more ambitious to me and I don't know how to interpret it
Interesting. If you don't mind noise from behind the curve, as I read that I often thought of fundamentals, aka basics. Heat rises, fire needs oxygen, and however a backdraft works. Pilots have equivalents: air pressure is less around a curved (longer) surface than a straight (shorter) one, and this works vertically and horizontally. Triage doctors have to know fundamentals about the body and trauma types and such. Auto repair, HVAC repair, etc, every true expert knows the fundamentals well, while self-proclaimed or academic "experts" might barely know them at all.
When you know the fundamental facts and principles, a situation will speak to you in ways that might be missed by someone merely choosing options.
And I suppose that if you've learned them long ago, you might unconsciously back-burner them in the adrenaline chaos of a burning building. They should be the reason Klein and the firefighter were able to piece together retrospectively how his "ESP" worked. It seems to me that if the firefighter had merely been weighing options, he might not have guessed right to get out of there, or even if he did, he wouldn't have been much use in figuring out the "ESP".
EDIT: fixed a stupid oops.
Sounds right. Experts have a qualitative understanding of a situation which allows them to model causality in a way that Expected Utility would not. This ability to understand causality is partly why they don't have to choose between options but simply see what must be done.
Yeah, causality and the components which are themselves causative agents. That's my take.
"Expected utility" begs the question: expectations from exactly what?
I’ve been thinking a lot about decision-making in relation to prescribing and use of medicines, and this has really helped me integrate some of the ideas I’ve been thinking about it. Actively developing your mental models really helps it makes sense to me - thank you!
Interesting essay. Is this the start of a series?
we will posting the follow-up essay next week :)
I have other essays about expertise on my Substack. What Seeds of Science is publishing is a smattering of different things
Great read! Fair to invoke Scott's “metis/techne” as applicable here?
I've never read Scott, so I don't know exactly how he uses those terms, but it definitely seems related. Greek has a few different types of knowledge, and I might use the term Episteme to characterize the rational and theoretical knowledge traditionally valorized in academia and our culture more generally. Then expertise might be understood as a combination of phronesis/gnosis. The term techne is a little more ambitious to me and I don't know how to interpret it
Ambiguous* not ambitious