I think your argument is damaged by the inclusion of "world class", "top cited", etc. Such competitive reframings of capability/merit are the evidence that social darwinism, capitalism, and neoliberalism are failures as -isms. Whether one plans the *best* invasion, is the fastest/best diaper changer, etc. is irrelevant. What matters is whether delegation to an other/specialist *requires* some degree of understanding of what it is being delegated.
I.e. do I simply take my car to the mechanic so she can *fix* it? Or do I take my car to the mechanic so that she can replace the alternator because I've already done a diagnostic on the battery and know it's fine? And is the former or the latter more indicative of general intelligence? On 3/6/19 1:29 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Life has finite length and the rate of learning is finite. Individuals > aren’t going to learn how to do everything. It isn’t even helpful to write > down a list of `everything’ and say go learn that. Because it just insults > the vastness of everything, and assumes that collectively we see even a > little of it. Why not throw “become a world class violinist” or “become > the top cited researcher in string theory” or “break the two hour barrier on > the marathon” into the mix too? -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
