Two people with same years of experience may not be the same. | Hacker News Reader

Two people with same years of experience may not be the same.

3 pointsskowmunk6 comments

I guess what is stated up in the title is as obvious as the fact that there is a night and day.

But it is the explanation (the why) or the method of explanation that I would like to be critiqued:

The Why: (for what is stated in the title)

Because one person might have collected (by pushing to collect or incidentally or both) more points of information in that same period than the other, thus having more 'effective' experience than the other, at the end of the same 'period of experience'

Why I think this method of explanation is important? (the why for the why)

Because understanding it can potentially make a person push to collect more points of information in whatever potential experience he/she would get in the future. The more points of information he/she collects, the more productive he/she can be to a company employing him/her, making that person that much more valuable to the company. A win - win situation for both.

Even if one is not bothered about the productivity gains for the company, the more points of information one collects over a 'period of experience', the more they are going to make themselves valuable by the end of that experience. And of course, more the value, more is the marketability.

Just wanted to share and refine it further, if I can get any critiquing.

------------ A note:

This is a small illustration/part of a meta-belief system that I am discovering/developing/constructing for my own purposes, which I found supports a whole lot of beliefs I have developed for myself over time. It is also helping me analyze and understand new scenarios/problems I am examining, and find possible solutions for them, as well as develop more sustainable new beliefs for myself.

This all seems obvious to me. If one person goes home after work and watches TV while the other person takes out a book and reads, there you go. Similarly, if one person goes home and has to deal with wife & kids vs. a single person who has time to read/tinker, again there you go.

But the entire notion rests on a Utopian base: that the employer can recognize the difference. Most cannot and do not even care.

hmm, its not necessarily Utopian.

I have seen some successful companies actually have similar strategies in their people development policies.

They have strategies to develop people with breadth of experience that would make them good for certain roles like project leaders. They also have strategies to develop people with depth of experience that would make them good for other roles like functional excellence leaders.

Its just I don't think they formulate based on the phrase 'points of information' but simply call it experience or exposure.

I agree that many employers/managers don't care. But there are good managers and bad managers, there are companies with great people development policies and ones with the bad policies. So have hope. :)

Not trying to justify, but its just my process of refining, if I can't explain, then I have to work on it.

I think you're going down a rat-hole by trying to frame things in terms of "points of information". There's a lot more to "experience" than the simple collection of data points.

That phrase "points of information" is a common term I apply to all pieces of knowledge, whether it is gained through practical hands on experience, reading, observations and analysis or talking with others to know what they gained from their hands on experience, reading, observations or analysis and so on.

End of the day, however it is gained, first hand or second hand, it is all knowledge.

To quite some extent, if one is low on one type of knowledge, one can make up with increasing the knowledge from another source.

Imagine a 3-d space filled with points. Some points may be of one color, some of another color, some bigger, some smaller, but all can be used if you want to make a network of points/pattern (that is, form an idea using that knowledge/points)

In fact, though not explicit, the benefits of having a network(the people type) is this, to have access to a much bigger universe of points than one's own, to increase the ability to find solutions(which is an idea, at the end) to one's problems.

That phrase "points of information" is a common term I apply to all pieces of knowledge, whether it is gained through practical hands on experience, reading, observations and analysis or talking with others to know what they gained from their hands on experience, reading, observations or analysis and so on. End of the day, however it is gained, first hand or second hand, it is all knowledge.

No: it is not "all knowledge." There are also things like judgment, and wisdom.

I repeat: I think you're heading down a rat-hole with this "meta-belief system." You're creating an extremely reductionist epistemology, and sooner or later, it's going to start skewing your judgment.

First, I would have to thank you for your first comment:

"I think you're going down a rat-hole by trying to frame things in terms of "points of information". There's a lot more to "experience" than the simple collection of data points."

After I replied to it, on examining my own reply, I found out your comment was the perfect example for a good enough analysis to find a good enough solution to a problem of mine. Now my challenge is to practice that solution enough to make it effortless.

Coming back to "judgment" and "wisdom"

What is wisdom, but accumulated knowledge, hopefully filtered through the sieve of common sense? (irrespective of whether that knowledge is factual or purported to be factual)

What is judgment, but a decision based on that accumulated knowledge, once again, irrespective of whether that knowledge is factual or purported to be factual?

I believe that, whether one is conscious or not of them, we are predominantly slaves to our beliefs (while still being capable of modifying them, and of course, the beliefs themselves are subject to change because of stimulus, whether it is internal or external stimulus). So I think it is worth to keep developing beliefs that are 'good', 'strong' and 'reason' based.

This development of the "meta-belief system" is sort of an experiment of my own, based on certain observations and personal convictions, and also inspired by TPS (Toyota Production System), the Zero defect goal (impossible to achieve, but gives rise to the right actions), COS, (Cummins Operating system, people don't follow it all the time, still it gives rise to the right efforts more often than not), the mission statements extolled in six sigma classes and big corporations.

All these are simple set of words that are not meant to put out in detail what one should do in each and every situation, but still are remarkably efficient in ensuring that most actions in particular situations are in particular direction (hopefully the right one) more often than not.

So that's how a "meta-belief system is supposed to work, at least in my definition of it. Its supposed to be like a substratum/foundation for beliefs on which other beliefs can exist on the basis of reason, or like an equation in maths or physics from which one can derive more practical equations that can be applied to different practical problems.

Well.. if you check with me in 10 years, I think I would have collected enough wisdom to know if this judgment to develop this meta-belief system and try to live by it was right or not. And you can tell me then if my judgment was skewed or not :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com