I’d like to understand why in some areas (science, sports) almost everyone at the top went through formal training, but in other areas (business, the arts) many of those at the top didn’t have formal training. What makes these areas different.
I think it has a lot to do with weather or not the accumulated knolage that you’ll get though training is any good. It’s hard to make in in physics withough going though physics education, because you need all that accumulated knolage in order to be part of taking the next step. On the other hand in AI safety reserch you don’t need as much AI safety education (although I still recomend some) becasue ther just isn’t as much valid accumulated knolage to catch up on.
Notice that I wrote education rather than formal training. There are other ways to get educated, than going to a formal training program (e.g. physics uni courses). But expecially when you have years of education to do, like in phyiscs, it’s easier to do it in a more structured setting.
I expect things to move from “many of those at the top didn’t have formal training” to “almost everyone at the top went through formal training” as the formal training gets better, both in therms of how much knolage you can learn from others, and in terms of how good the formal institutions are at teaching. I expect you to be able to see this trend clearly when looking at diffrent sports.
I don’t have an answer, but I’ll note that, for the four examples you suggested, science and sports feel more culture-y to me, and business and the arts feel more fragmented and multicultural. Like, it’s easier for me to imagine people in business and the arts “making it” without ever acculturating to some preexisting group or set of norms, than it is for me to imagine people “making it” as a scientist or an athlete.
I’d like to understand why in some areas (science, sports) almost everyone at the top went through formal training, but in other areas (business, the arts) many of those at the top didn’t have formal training. What makes these areas different.
I think it has a lot to do with weather or not the accumulated knolage that you’ll get though training is any good. It’s hard to make in in physics withough going though physics education, because you need all that accumulated knolage in order to be part of taking the next step. On the other hand in AI safety reserch you don’t need as much AI safety education (although I still recomend some) becasue ther just isn’t as much valid accumulated knolage to catch up on.
Notice that I wrote education rather than formal training. There are other ways to get educated, than going to a formal training program (e.g. physics uni courses). But expecially when you have years of education to do, like in phyiscs, it’s easier to do it in a more structured setting.
I expect things to move from “many of those at the top didn’t have formal training” to “almost everyone at the top went through formal training” as the formal training gets better, both in therms of how much knolage you can learn from others, and in terms of how good the formal institutions are at teaching. I expect you to be able to see this trend clearly when looking at diffrent sports.
I don’t have an answer, but I’ll note that, for the four examples you suggested, science and sports feel more culture-y to me, and business and the arts feel more fragmented and multicultural. Like, it’s easier for me to imagine people in business and the arts “making it” without ever acculturating to some preexisting group or set of norms, than it is for me to imagine people “making it” as a scientist or an athlete.