[hindsightRegret]

One counterpoint I have to this article.

Considering expert vs. novice problem-solving: Within their domain, experts leverage highly efficient models. Outside? Rigidity often impedes adaptation. Their ingrained patterns, assets in familiar territory, become cognitive liabilities in the unfamiliar. The novice's counter-intuitive strength lies in a lack of assumptions, fostering the openness to explore without ego.

[hindsightRegret]

If the expert has good T skill shape and beginner's mindset for new scenarios - this does not applly.

[beyarkay]

(author here) I agree that novices have an advantage in that they have few assumptions:

> Something you can do independently (and possibly it’s best done without expert supervision), is exploration of the field. You know nothing, and have no biases about what may or may not be useful. Any time you come across something that feels like it has some depth to it, such as a well-written essay series or a deep technical dive, you need to invest heavily into it. As a novice, your one advantage is that everything is new and nobody expects you to be fast. Because of this, you can afford to spend the time to learn as much as possible.

I'm not sure that it's correct to characterise an expert by the lack of this though. I think it's correlated, but not all experts are so rigid.

[lawn]

I'd say this is an example of over-fitting, where the expert is too focused on their particular domain.

[skydhash]

But sometimes, there's just not enough variance between the domains. Any NIH attitude is more likely to veer into complicated systems than finding the next best abstractions.