![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg width="640" height="640" style="background-color:%2344badc;font-family:Nunito,sans-serif" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="xMidYMid meet" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<text font-size="30" x="50%" y="50%" dy="5" fill="white" dominant-baseline="middle" text-anchor="middle">Z</text>
</svg>)
Does having experience mean you have a mastery of a skill?
wanted to write on this long ago, but this was apparently the destined time for execution.
through reading nietzche and others, i realized that constructing a nuanced argument was always the best as it allowed to you look at the matter through two or more lenses. this then made you the least biased.
what is experience? it is a direct exposure to a type of activity. now i want to be as less biased as possible, thus giving the least inclination to either sides of the matter, that is experience=mastery or no.
does exposure to x imply you gained sth about x, yes and no. the reason is simply participating in a lesson or observation doesnt mean you learned sth from it. deliberate concentration and engagement does. yes yes, exposure can mean a little gain, but it is so little that no impact is made to overall elevation of a person.
take a student for a example who exposes himself to lessons and observations every single day, yet there seems to be no evidence of a trifle growth. and that is because experiencing an event does not mean you fully or sufficiently got the most out of it. if that were the case, then literally every other person you meet would be smart and your ego would shatter into unfixable pieces.
i can derive from this that experience does not necessarily mean master or skilled at a task. it is just correlated with it. and statistically speaking, if i were to ratio the people who effectively capitalized on their experience with those who did not, it would get too small — that is people with no growth would overweigh the other by a huge degree.
with that, i am trying to address the conservative system of employee selection where they first look at the experience YEARS of the worker then at soft and hard core skills.
wanted to write on this long ago, but this was apparently the destined time for execution.
through reading nietzche and others, i realized that constructing a nuanced argument was always the best as it allowed to you look at the matter through two or more lenses. this then made you the least biased.
what is experience? it is a direct exposure to a type of activity. now i want to be as less biased as possible, thus giving the least inclination to either sides of the matter, that is experience=mastery or no.
does exposure to x imply you gained sth about x, yes and no. the reason is simply participating in a lesson or observation doesnt mean you learned sth from it. deliberate concentration and engagement does. yes yes, exposure can mean a little gain, but it is so little that no impact is made to overall elevation of a person.
take a student for a example who exposes himself to lessons and observations every single day, yet there seems to be no evidence of a trifle growth. and that is because experiencing an event does not mean you fully or sufficiently got the most out of it. if that were the case, then literally every other person you meet would be smart and your ego would shatter into unfixable pieces.
i can derive from this that experience does not necessarily mean master or skilled at a task. it is just correlated with it. and statistically speaking, if i were to ratio the people who effectively capitalized on their experience with those who did not, it would get too small — that is people with no growth would overweigh the other by a huge degree.
with that, i am trying to address the conservative system of employee selection where they first look at the experience YEARS of the worker then at soft and hard core skills.