Experience vs. Brilliance

[macethump]

"How was it even possible that transferring decisions from elites with more education, intellect, data, and power to ordinary people could lead consistently to demonstrably better results?

One implication is that no one is smart enough to carry out social engineering, whether in the economy or in other areas where the results may not always be so easily quantifiable. We learn, not from our initial brilliance, but from trial-and-error adjustments to events as they unfold.

Science tells us that the human brain reaches its maximum potential in early adulthood. Why then are young adults so seldom capable of doing what people with more years of experience can do?

Because experience trumps brilliance.

Elites may have more brilliance, but those who make decisions for society as a whole cannot possibly have as much experience as the millions of people whose decisions they preempt. The education and intellects of the elites may lead them to have more sweeping presumptions, but that just makes them more dangerous to the freedom, as well as to the well-being, of the people as a whole."
- Thomas Sowell

Take that, you young whippersnappers!

 

[CJ1145]

But a brilliant young man can more easily acquire experience than an old dunce. Therefore brilliance is still the key.

 

[macethump]

But a brilliant young man can more easily acquire experience than an old dunce. Therefore brilliance is still the key.

Not necessarily.  His "brilliance" may cause him to leap to an unwarranted conclusion, where someone without so much "knowledge" to skew his thinking or obstruct his learning might be more open to the actual lessons of the experience.

 

[CJ1145]

You're confusing brilliance with naivete. I don't understand how that's possible.

 

[Tuckles]

It's more likely that an experienced person will go with a tried and true system because "that works". Someone brilliant on the other hand could be able to find a theoretically more efficient system and put it into practice. If it doesn't work, lo and behold, he is now both brilliant and experienced.

Guess what that means: Experience and brilliance aren't the opposite ends of a spectrum, ergo, your experience vs brilliance argument is moot.

 

[mournful]

I think both have their place in society.

I'm reminded of the story about the founders of Microsoft and Apple... Bill Gates, Ballmer, Steve Jobs, Wozniack, were all around college age when founding their companies. In fact many of the tech giants today are all about 54-55 years of age. There was a third founder of Apple who was substantially older than the other founders. He had some bad experiences with owning companies & losing money on them before and ended up selling his stock in Apple for $800 (those shares would be worth about 20 billion today). Experience is important but it can also make one very risk averse and less open to seeing new ideas. In the early 70's, all the ones who took advantage of the pc revolution were young, college students. For some reason, older more experienced people couldn't see what what happening soon enough.

There's a quote which I can't remember where I heard it but it goes something like "They were too young to know it couldn't be done... and so they did it."

 

[macethump]

You're confusing brilliance with naivete. I don't understand how that's possible.

This is how that's possible:

"Ready comprehension is often a knee-jerk response and the most dangerous form of understanding. It blinks an opaque screen over your ablility to learn. The judgemental precedents of law function that way, littering your path with dead ends. Be warned. Understand nothing. All comprehension is temporary."
Frank Herbert

Brilliant people often get their reputation for brilliance by understanding things before those around them (ready comprehension).  They are especially vulnerable to the above error.

"Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal,
they ought to be conclusive and sacred."
— political philosopher Alexander Hamilton

I think both have their place in society.

I'm reminded of the story about the founders of Microsoft and Apple... Bill Gates, Ballmer, Steve Jobs, Wozniack, were all around college age when founding their companies. In fact many of the tech giants today are all about 54-55 years of age. There was a third founder of Apple who was substantially older than the other founders. He had some bad experiences with owning companies & losing money on them before and ended up selling his stock in Apple for $800 (those shares would be worth about 20 billion today). Experience is important but it can also make one very risk averse and less open to seeing new ideas. In the early 70's, all the ones who took advantage of the pc revolution were young, college students. For some reason, older more experienced people couldn't see what what happening soon enough.

There's a quote which I can't remember where I heard it but it goes something like "They were too young to know it couldn't be done... and so they did it."

These are the same "brilliant" people who brought us the dot.com bubble and sucked investors into their brilliant schemes that didn't work.  For evey Steve Jobs and Michael Dell there are hundreds of disappeared failures and thousands of disappointed investors.

 

[CJ1145]

He-he-he. My long-winded and ass-blown argument is so distracting, nobody will realize I ignored Tuckles, who dismantled the very foundation of my case!

 

[macethump]

It's more likely that an experienced person will go with a tried and true system because "that works". Someone brilliant on the other hand could be able to find a theoretically more efficient system and put it into practice. If it doesn't work, lo and behold, he is now both brilliant and experienced.

Guess what that means: Experience and brilliance aren't the opposite ends of a spectrum, ergo, your experience vs brilliance argument is moot.

It's just that those with no experience will depend on brilliance, to the long-term detriment of everyone.  And some of the brilliant make some excuse for their failure (uncontrolled variables, resistance, sabotage) rather than learn something useful from the experience.

Also, not everyone can be "brilliant."  Everyone can have experiences and, hopefully, learn from them.  Much more egalitarian.

Japanese business models depended on the experienced production workers to find a more efficient way through their experience, not through management brilliance.

He-he-he. My long-winded and ass-blown argument is so distracting, nobody will realize I ignored Tuckles, who dismantled the very foundation of my case!

Not really - it's just that he removed himself from the discussion by stating he did not believe in the distinction at all.  Certainly his right.  I don't happen to agree with him, and so will continue on without his further contribution, I guess

 

[LK]

Flawed comparison

Brilliance weights experience: that is, those who are smarter will make better use of the same experience.

Smarter is always better, don't ever get fooled into believing otherwise.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

He-he-he. My long-winded and ass-blown argument is so distracting, nobody will realize I ignored Tuckles, who dismantled the very foundation of my case!

Not really - it's just that he removed himself from the discussion by stating he did not believe in the distinction at all.  Certainly his right.  I don't happen to agree with him, and so will continue on without his further contribution, I guess

When someone calls you out on a false dichotomy, they are not removing themselves from discussion. He has believed you made an error or sorts, perhaps of the semantic nature.

 

[Cookie Eating Huskarl]

Understanding the significance of experience requires a degree of brilliance. Brilliance that is worth noting requires a degree of experience.

An idiot will continue banging his head against the wall although experience teaches him it hurts.

A 'brilliant' person in this case will find some ice for his head and then find something better to do. Experience teaches him to avoid contact between heads and walls in the future.

 

[Togakure]

Even the finest steel must be properly forged and well-crafted.  And it still only accomplishes that which its wielder is capable.

Folks have talent in a given thing in varying degrees.  Talent isn't something over which we have any control.  Those with talent we call "naturals;" the rest of us have to really work at it.  But I've known many people with talent who were lazy and unfocused, outdone by those with less talent and more focus, self-discipline, and drive.  But those with talent and focus, self-discipline and drive--they're the real shiners.

Experience?  Depends on how it's used.  Some people go through life with their heads up their asses.  Some have their eyes open and their minds engaged, but don't DO much.  Some DO a lot, but don't use their heads.  A few think and do, and are naturally talented, and kick ass more and more as they build up experience.

I don't see any point in comparing "brilliance" with experience in this context.  There's a lot more to it.


EDIT:
Regarding the Herbert quote, I've heard it put like this: When you think you know a thing, you create barriers to further learning about that thing.  "Know" nothing.

Lol ... funny thing to say, given my avatar.

 

[Cookie Eating Huskarl]

Regarding the Herbert quote, I've heard it put like this: When you think you know a thing, you create barriers to further learning about that thing.  "Know" nothing.

So by that logic, if I know how to switch on/off a computer, I'm a software engineer, electronics engineer and basically a master of everything computer? I don't think many, if any people operate by that logic. Our basic curiosity deters that.

edit : if you don't get the above, think of the phrase "A stroke of brilliance" as they say it.

 

[Togakure]

Regarding the Herbert quote, I've heard it put like this: When you think you know a thing, you create barriers to further learning about that thing.  "Know" nothing.

So by that logic, if I know how to switch on/off a computer, I'm a software engineer, electronics engineer and basically a master of everything computer? I don't think many, if any people operate by that logic. Our basic curiosity deters that.

Heh, speaking of knee-jerk reactions. "Logic is little tweeting bird chirping in meadow. Logic is wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."

Perhaps you would do well to ponder a thing that rubs you wrong before sticking your head up your ass  .  You provide a nice example of the very point.

 

[Cookie Eating Huskarl]

Regarding the Herbert quote, I've heard it put like this: When you think you know a thing, you create barriers to further learning about that thing.  "Know" nothing.

So by that logic, if I know how to switch on/off a computer, I'm a software engineer, electronics engineer and basically a master of everything computer? I don't think many, if any people operate by that logic. Our basic curiosity deters that.

Heh, speaking of knee-jerk reactions. "Logic is little tweeting bird chirping in meadow. Logic is wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."

Perhaps you would do well to ponder a thing that rubs you wrong before sticking your head up your ass  .  You provide a nice example of the very point.

Ahh shoot... misunderstood that phrase there. Noticed the quotations on the word know the second time round. Forgive me for my eyes are growing old and weary.

On the rest of your last post however, I would say a person with the balance of not reaching genius brilliance and a adequate experience would outplay a natural. Therefore both are as of equal importance and one does not achieve anything lacking one of them.

 

[Adviser]

As an experienced smuggler I would say that the miners, pirates and mob-bosses use a lot of brilliance, altough smugling a large cargo of it right in front of militia could be compared to smugling catnip to Kilrathi territory. A friggin crazy flight.

 

[Togakure]

ahh shoot... misunderstood that phrase there. Noticed the quotations on the word know the second time round. Forgive me for my eyes are growing old and weary.

On the rest of your last post however, I would say a person with the balance of not reaching genius brilliance and a adequate experience would outplay a natural. Therefore both are as of equal importance and one does not achieve anything lacking one of them.achieve anything lacking one of them.

No problem; sorry for being snappy.  I agree with you.  Our society needs varying levels of intelligence, experience and capability in order to function properly.  A moderately talented person with much experience is usually more adept at a given thing than a naturally talented person without experience.  Being a 20-year public sector IT professional, I've seen a lot of that.  I've spent a lot of effort coaching brilliant young new hires about temperance, organizational behavior and culture, the nature of business politics, and all the finer details of working in the professional IT environment that you simply cannot learn in school.  I was much like them a while ago.  Fortunately I had good teachers--mostly less-talented but much more experienced folk--who took the time to school me while on the job.  I listened, and learned.  Now, I try and pay that buck back.  It's a ***** sometimes, 'cause some truly brilliant folks new to the game just don't listen.  They already "know" everything ....

 

[Wolfang]

As an experienced smuggler I would say that the miners, pirates and mob-bosses use a lot of brilliance, altough smugling a large cargo of it right in front of militia could be compared to smugling catnip to Kilrathi territory. A friggin crazy flight.

Did I understand this correctly? You are a smuggler  ?

 

[Togakure]

As an experienced smuggler I would say that the miners, pirates and mob-bosses use a lot of brilliance, altough smugling a large cargo of it right in front of militia could be compared to smugling catnip to Kilrathi territory. A friggin crazy flight.

Did I understand this correctly? You are a smuggler  ?

"Kilrathi" should have given you a clue (Wing Commander).  He's referring to a game.