I collaborate with different individuals on multiple disciplines. Often, I propose my collaborators to venture into areas which I have got only cursory familiarity. We work with things which are fundamental in nature. Direct "monetization" of things which I am interested in collaborating is difficult. and it is by choice. It often servers a mechanism for food for thought. Of course, It does posses some "intrinsic" value.
Couple of weeks back, while travelling to Bangalore, I happen to buy a book titled, "Rookie Smart", written by Liz Wiseman. The central thesis of this book is, most often, Experts are at a disadvantage against "Rookies", in modern day work place. She has clustered Rookies with similar traits to "BackPacker","Hunter-Gather", "FireWalker" and "Pioneer" etc.
After doing some reading, I loaned this book to a collaborator of mine. After a day, he phoned me and asked a question which went as follows, "If Rookies can beat an expert in most areas, what is the point of learning deep topics?". I was bit taken aback, after getting this response. . After a while, I did understand that, he has fallen victim to the logical fallacy monikered as "Affirming the consequent".
The fallacy goes as follows
A => B. B has happened, therefore A. ( If A, then B. B , Therefore A)
The book is about how a rookie can upstage an expert,in some areas. It is not about, experts are upstaged by rookies, everywhere. So, book never implies that there is no point in become an expert at something. A naive analysis will lead to some kind of "Nihilistic" view that, It is futile to gain deep expertise in anything.
Couple of weeks back, while travelling to Bangalore, I happen to buy a book titled, "Rookie Smart", written by Liz Wiseman. The central thesis of this book is, most often, Experts are at a disadvantage against "Rookies", in modern day work place. She has clustered Rookies with similar traits to "BackPacker","Hunter-Gather", "FireWalker" and "Pioneer" etc.
After doing some reading, I loaned this book to a collaborator of mine. After a day, he phoned me and asked a question which went as follows, "If Rookies can beat an expert in most areas, what is the point of learning deep topics?". I was bit taken aback, after getting this response. . After a while, I did understand that, he has fallen victim to the logical fallacy monikered as "Affirming the consequent".
The fallacy goes as follows
A => B. B has happened, therefore A. ( If A, then B. B , Therefore A)
The book is about how a rookie can upstage an expert,in some areas. It is not about, experts are upstaged by rookies, everywhere. So, book never implies that there is no point in become an expert at something. A naive analysis will lead to some kind of "Nihilistic" view that, It is futile to gain deep expertise in anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment