To be expert in something you need just to put a lot of work in to it?

[sasha_fishter]

I'm little bit baffled about what it takes to be good at something, building a business, being a good developer, designer, artist, whatever.

I recently saw a documentary about Pirate Bay, and I notice a pattern. I.e. Gottfrid Svartholm was all into the building stuff, he learned along the way, probably yes, he read books, articles, whatever, but what I've seen in many people his calibre is that they just work on something and learned more and more. They've become experts even thought they maybe didn't realised that.

So the question is, do we need to read all those book, articles, podcasts, documentaries to be good, or is it mostly waste of time that we could spend learning through practice?

[Ekaros]

Reference materials are very useful when you have problem and need solution. Books and articles do help lot in those cases. And being able or learning from the times you can't solve something and need support is what makes you an expert.

And then there is also keeping up with the current trends and best practises. You could be expert in some obsolete version of technology. And it could have been replaced in wide spread use with new version or different thing.

So some time spend on following podcasts or news articles or documentaries is useful, but I would say this is minor compared to actually doing the thing.

[h2odragon]

Different people perform best in different circumstances. No simplistic, single "how to be a success" formula will work for everyone.

My best approach to things is "jump in the swamp and thrash wildly," more often than not. The process is likely to look ugly to bystanders, and include a lot of splash and noise that doesn't obviously advance progress.

Others might prefer the more considered approach, with advance plans, co-ordination checkpoints, well defined metrics and signposts placed ahead of the work along the route, so that they know where they're at, and where they're going, all the time.

I don't say they're wrong; its just that approach doesn't work as well for me. Those for whom it does work might feel they'd drown trying to do things my way. That without the preparation of prior study, they'd drop under the surface with a bloop never to be seen again.

There's reasons one approach might be better than the other in a given moment: Are we hunting alligator for dinner tonight, or are we seeking to build a bridge over the swamp without disturbing potential piranha under the surface?

Many people simply enjoy the observation part of scholarship, without ever reaching the level of inspiration that would lead them to do something with the knowledge they've gained through it. Nothing wrong with that; especially when you don't have a goal you burn for. Unfortunately I feel our educational traditions have come to value that for itself. Actual passion is unseemly at best.

[isralcduke]

so true : The process is likely to look ugly to bystanders, and include a lot of splash and noise that doesn't obviously advance progress.

[isralcduke]

For me, it’s a combination of reading, more reading, and often re-reading to squeeze out more understanding or to be thorough. at first, idk when too much is too much because i have no domain knowledge on the subject. Then it’s using the knowledge to explain it to someone else or use it in a work project.

[ano-ther]

Most is practice. You cannot learn doing something without actually doing it, failing, observing what works etc.

The advice part helps with two things though: (1) it speeds up the learning process because you don’t have to find out everything yourself and (2) helps you reflect on your practice which boosts the feedback loop.

[coxomb]

> do we need to read all those book, articles, podcasts, documentaries to be good

Books will only get you so far. You have to do the work. It's not our thoughts and brilliant ideas, it's our actions which matter in the end. Did you execute?

[gregjor]

Yes. That’s what “expert” means.

[BMc2020]

False dichotomy, you need both.

[082349872349872]

But the "mostly waste of time" is true: you don't need all the advice, you only need the 10% (1%?) of it that's actually any good.

(The biggest hurdle is getting enough expertise that you can ignore the dross?)

The flip side of this is you can't just read advice; you have to try it (and maybe even try its opposite). Expertise is not a spectator sport.

[sasha_fishter]

I agree, but do you think pursuing that 10/1% is worth spending time reading books/articles?

[082349872349872]

Yes. For instance, I've read the first and last books mentioned in https://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2020/07/the-os-classics... and wholeheartedly recommend them (esp. Gray&Reuter!) to anyone with a systems bent. (I've also read several others mentioned there and based on their quality I'd be willing to pick up the ones I haven't read)

I guess it's a bit of a chicken and egg: you need to skim ruthlessly, ignoring (à la Sturgeon's Law) most of what is proffered, skim what you don't ignore (index, table of contents, and a few random pages within), but when you do find "the good stuff", stop, read it, and probably also read works it refers to. Unfortunately for the initial filter to work, you can't be a complete neophyte, but luckily practice helps a good deal there.

Looked at from the other way around ("reversing all the arrows"): whenever you find a work that is helpful for expertise, stop, soak it up, and explore its neighbours. This will be time intensive, especially the practicing part, so of necessity you will need to leave the vast majority of things unread...

> Ved å studere mesterne, og ikke deres elever — NHA ("read the masters, not the students")