You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: _posts/2019-11-16-compentence_over_comprehension.md
+31-42Lines changed: 31 additions & 42 deletions
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -14,34 +14,31 @@ they have. Understanding is another whole level above being competent at somethi
14
14
an unnecessary part.
15
15
16
16
Birds evolved the capacity for flight (competency), which comes with all types of evolutionary
17
-
advantages (for capturing prey, for evading predators, etc.), but they didn't evolve the ability to
17
+
advantages (capturing prey, evading predators, etc.), but they didn't evolve the ability to
18
18
to understand why flight is useful or why they evolved the ability in the first place (comprehension).
19
19
The capacity for understanding an ability is totally separate from the ability itself. At the very
20
20
least, they are orthogonal, and more likely they're in slight opposition.
21
21
22
22
Arguably, humans have great capacity for understanding. Arguably, we don't need competency for
23
23
abilities, like flight, where if we just understand them enough we can just engineer and/ or
24
-
manufacture them from our understanding. Some might argue this is why we now have the ability for
25
-
flight, augmented by machines we've engineered and/ or manufactured.
24
+
manufacture them from our understanding.
26
25
27
-
## Competence > Comprehension
26
+
## Competence Precedes Comprehension
28
27
29
-
Except that's now how the technology for flight originally developed, and that's not how technology
30
-
generally develops. Aviation technology didn't develop by taking the laws of aerodynamics and
31
-
building a machine that harnesses them in a clever way to produce flight. That's not how it worked,
28
+
Except that's not how the technology for flight originally developed, and that's not how technology develops in general.
29
+
30
+
Aviation technology didn't develop by taking the laws of aerodynamics and building a machine that harnesses them in a clever way to produce flight. That's not how it worked,
32
31
the first great breakthrough in human flight didn't come from physicists or scientists. The first
33
32
great breakthrough came from 2 brothers who were bicycle mechanics, experimenting, iterating and
34
33
imitating what they thought worked for birds. Their genius wasn't from understanding, it came from
35
34
mechanical competence and application of that competence. The understanding of why exactly it worked
36
35
came later, the science trailed the engineering.
37
36
38
37
And, believe it or not, this is the dominant pattern in human technological development. We don't
39
-
understand how many drugs that we know work well, and use daily, actually work (e.g. aspirin's mechanism
40
-
of action is still unknown). The inventions of written human language and the telegraph preceded
41
-
information theory. We still don't have a good understanding for why deep neural networks work as
42
-
well as they do. And then, the biggest kicker of them all, there's the machine/ organ we rely on for
43
-
literally everything---that which you trust to determine what to trust---our brains, the interworkings
44
-
of which we still only have a cursory understanding of.
38
+
understand how many drugs that we know work well, and use daily, actually work (e.g. aspirin's mechanism of action is still unknown). The inventions of written human language and the telegraph preceded information theory. We still don't have a good understanding for why deep neural networks work as well as they do.
39
+
40
+
And then, the biggest kicker of them all, there's the machine/ organ we rely on for
41
+
literally everything---that which you trust to determine what to trust---our brains, the interworkings of which we still only have a cursory understanding of.
45
42
46
43
With all of the talk of the danger of black boxes in machine learning and scientific research, it's
47
44
amazing how little white boxes--things where we understand and can explain their mechanics--there
@@ -51,35 +48,27 @@ things which we undestand as a society, but individuals take for granted and eff
51
48
black boxes (e.g. cars, again your own brain, etc.).
52
49
53
50
And I don't think this is such a bad thing. My point here is this: when it comes down to it, what
54
-
matters most is competency, that things work. Not how they work, or understanding why they work.
55
-
This is why compentence is better than comprehension 100% of the time. If you need your car fixed,
56
-
you hire a mechanic, not a physicist.
57
-
58
-
## Value Added By Comprehension Requires Competence
59
-
60
-
That's not to completely do away with comprehension, that would be silly. Science is comprehension
61
-
and obviously that's not something we want to do away with. Comprehension does a lot to offer as
62
-
well, but it's at higher levels of value, it's more difficult and importantly it requires competence.
63
-
64
-
Part of the reason why great athletes or artists aren't always the best coaches or teachers is because
65
-
they're too steeped in competence, too reliant on their intuition and can't seem to develop (because
66
-
they never needed to develop) good ways of communicating that competence to others. The best coaches
67
-
many times come from subpar athletes that love the game and dedicate time to *studying* it, rather
68
-
than *playing* it.
69
-
70
-
Great coaches make for great teams, and dynasties. There would be no Patriots without Belichick
71
-
(comprehension). However, equally true, there would also be no Patriots without Brady (competence).
72
-
You can't play the game without the players, the coaches just add another level at which to be great.
73
-
74
-
Which brings us to what competence is: competence is execution, is the physical work or product
75
-
produced. The quality of the output, which using metrics over time can be quantified, is the mark
76
-
of the level of competency. Competency speaks in concrete terms by way of capability (physical, in
77
-
the case of sport) and in results. Comprehension doesn't speak concretely, it speaks in abstractions.
78
-
79
-
Given these facts, although comprehension can add value at higher levels--think great coach building
80
-
a great team--preference goes to competence. There would be no game without players playing
81
-
it, part of a great coach's job is ensuring the team's competence. At the highest levels of
82
-
performance, strong conprehension is necessary but it simply can't exist without competency.
51
+
matters most is competency, that things work. Not how they work, or understanding why they work. If you need your car fixed, you hire a mechanic, not a physicist.
52
+
53
+
## Comprehension Requires Competence
54
+
55
+
That doesn't mean we should completely do away with comprehension.
56
+
57
+
Science is comprehension and that's obviously not something we want to do away with at all. Comprehension can be very valuable, even though it's more difficult. Once we've developed a new technology, we gain a deeper understanding to optimize and take it to the next level.
58
+
59
+
One thing to remember though: competence is a typically a prerequisite for understanding.
60
+
61
+
Part of the reason why great athletes/ artists aren't always the best coaches/ teachers is because
62
+
they're too steeped in competence, too reliant on their intuition and never needed to develop ways of communicating that competence to others. The best coaches many times come from subpar athletes that love the game and dedicate time to *studying* it, rather than *playing* it.
63
+
64
+
No doubt great coaches make great teams. There would be no Patriots dynasty without Belichick
65
+
(comprehension). However, even more true, there would also be no Patriots dynasty without Brady (competence). Competence is execution; comprehension is strategy.
66
+
67
+
This is why competence > comprehension. You can't play the game without the players. You can't win without executing.
68
+
69
+
Competency speaks in concrete terms, in execution and in results. Comprehension doesn't speak concretely, it speaks in abstractions.
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: _posts/2024-11-01-re_elon.md
+1-1Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ I love this approach because everyone upstream in the development process unders
130
130
131
131
132
132
133
-
### Risk, Being All In and “Burning the Boats” Strategy
133
+
### Risk, Being All In and “Burning the Boats”
134
134
135
135
Elon loves “burning the boats”, where there’s no way to turn back after committing to a decision. He rarely has a fall back option. He goes all in and that’s clearly taken a huge part in his success.
0 commit comments