The empirical observations that have caused me to make the post! Most importantly that someone who has reached a high level of skill at anything in one skill cluster can with a few months of effort get really quite good at another skill in the same cluster, but not at a skill in a different cluster. In as much as that empirical observation holds up I think it clearly justifies having these 4 clusters.
Yes, that seems pretty likely to me. I mean, String theory is (I think) maybe the technically deepest part of physics, so it’s going to be a bit on the longer side of usual variance here, but yes, it seems clear to me that is possible.
If your claim is just that if you take the best person in the world within any field then they can probably learn almost any other within a few months, then I don’t think it’s particularly controversial/new (no offence intended)
Wait, I think this is a highly controversial take! Indeed I think when I present it to professionals in most fields they bark at this pretty frequently.
However, if you just took a reasonably good theoretical computer scientist, I absolutely don’t think they could do this easily.
The thing I am saying is that if you took a reasonably good theoretical computer scientist, then they could become a reasonably good mathematician, or engineer, or software developer, within 6 months if they try really hard. They wouldn’t be a better mathematician than they were a computer scientist, I am not proposing there is some magical “get the best in any field” button. Does that clarify? I wasn’t quite sure whether you were objecting to the “skill transfer within domains” thing, vs. the “expert level skill” thing.
For example, if they chose some computer science adjacent area of set theore, then I find the claim more plausible, although I am still unsure. If they chose differential geometry, I would seriously doubt the claim. I would also doubt that they could become good at designing batteries.
I mean, sure, then you disagree with the post! I think they could totally start making contributions to differential geometry at roughly the level where they made contributions in computer science.
I don’t think they could become good at designing batteries, at least if you mean “make a battery design from scratch”, because unsurprisingly in my ontology that skill is “design” and a CS degree does not usually transfer any design skill.
Comment withdrawn.
The empirical observations that have caused me to make the post! Most importantly that someone who has reached a high level of skill at anything in one skill cluster can with a few months of effort get really quite good at another skill in the same cluster, but not at a skill in a different cluster. In as much as that empirical observation holds up I think it clearly justifies having these 4 clusters.
Comment withdrawn.
Yes, that seems pretty likely to me. I mean, String theory is (I think) maybe the technically deepest part of physics, so it’s going to be a bit on the longer side of usual variance here, but yes, it seems clear to me that is possible.
Comment withdrawn.
Wait, I think this is a highly controversial take! Indeed I think when I present it to professionals in most fields they bark at this pretty frequently.
The thing I am saying is that if you took a reasonably good theoretical computer scientist, then they could become a reasonably good mathematician, or engineer, or software developer, within 6 months if they try really hard. They wouldn’t be a better mathematician than they were a computer scientist, I am not proposing there is some magical “get the best in any field” button. Does that clarify? I wasn’t quite sure whether you were objecting to the “skill transfer within domains” thing, vs. the “expert level skill” thing.
Comment withdrawn.
I mean, sure, then you disagree with the post! I think they could totally start making contributions to differential geometry at roughly the level where they made contributions in computer science.
I don’t think they could become good at designing batteries, at least if you mean “make a battery design from scratch”, because unsurprisingly in my ontology that skill is “design” and a CS degree does not usually transfer any design skill.