This is related to what I call the Google approach, but that's probably a dated term as it relates to the original Google search.<p>Basically, if you try to sell people on a really cool algorithm or other geeky stuff, they simply won't care because they don't understand.<p>Put all that nerdery behind a simple interface that lets people type stuff in and get a good answer and suddenly you've got a business.<p>The trick then is, figure out a business model where you won't be held back by the lack of expertise of your customers. Only talk with them about their desires, not what you're doing to achieve them.<p>Following this thread could lead to all sorts of weird places like a group of programmers getting jobs in different places and then automating what they are asked to do. But instead of giving that automation to people who won't appreciate it, just use it to complete your day's work early and spend the hour further automating. Again the difficulty shifts from convincing your customer/boss to understand your ideas to somehow hiding the cleverness behind some kind of wall so that they feel like they're getting value for money and have no need to micromanage you into mediocrity.<p>And then you realise this is basically what software companies do.<p>Kind of like Coase's theory of the firm but with expertise mismatch as a friction cost.
The author's core point is that climbing higher in any skill tree will often equip practitioners with a deeper index of understanding across that discipline. Reaching the "vocab point" as described in the article means one can participate in extensive discussion around the subject and skill; even when lacking the nuanced vocabulary to articulate certain observations or feelings, there is an intuitive and implicit recognition of the skill's shared language, themes and motifs.<p>I think this is an excellent mental model to evaluate our capabilities. I find the ability to analogize, to tell stories about vastly complex things in a way that is simple and digestible to a novice, is another hallmark of expertise. Richard Feynman used to say something like, "If I can't explain a subject simply, I don't understand it well enough" (paraphrased).<p>I'm the least technical team member in a scientific simulation company, yet I never feel out of place. In part, that's because I've invested effort into my ability to learn, but it's much more due to everyone else's ability and motivation to help me understand what's going on, to walk me through some of the layers of physical and digital abstractions, to call my attention to the history behind a dependency.<p>Analogies are the original abstraction, and they allow us to quickly and intuitively create a shared, contextual vocabulary for learning transfer. I wonder how much further there is to climb up this metaphorical tree!
This mirrors (vaguely plagiarizes?) the observations in numerous famous works on expertise levels:<p>The mundanity of excellence by Chambliss<p>Dreyfus model of skill acquisiton<p><a href="http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA084551&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA084551&Location=U...</a><p>Sources of Power by Gary Klein<p>Peak by Ericsson<p>Surprised not to see any nods to the giants whose shoulders this is standing on.
The author is on to something. I would put a different emphasis. I think higher level expertise tends to not map well to words at all. There are some people who develop an incredible pedagogy, but it is a tiny minority of experts.<p>Frankly, the convo with Herbie isn’t super informative. What they are talking about is necessarily vague.
re: Federer's backhand. A one-handed backhand has some flaws that are exposed by Nadal's crazy topspin. The sweet spot is to hit it waist high, like a baseball batter. If the ball jumps very high, then you (1) stand way behind the baseline and wait for the ball to drop to waist level, or (2) hit a weak slice from shoulder level. On (1) you're so far back that Nadal can run you around the court. On (2) Nadal will destroy your weak return. Hitting the ball immediately after it bounces is risky. You have less time to get in position, the ball can bounce erratically, and you generally take a shorter swing. Often people hit a slice on the rise. Hitting w/ topspin on the rise requires impeccable timing and finesse. When it works it's beautiful.