re: Understanding The Hierarchy of Competence VIEW POST

re: I'm missing the part how understending this helps to deal with "There's no real reason for me to learn this. It's just gonna be replaced by somethi...

I'm missing the part how understending this helps to deal with "There's no real reason for me to
learn this. It's just gonna be replaced by something else in a few years, anyway."
I think that the quoted statement is still true, regardless if you're aware of this hierarchy or not.

Well, there is a problem with that statement.

Just because we think that something is a hype doesn't make that a truth. And while not learning something might seem like the better take in the short run (saved time), it may very well show off as the wrong decision in the hindsight.

The hierarchy could show us something about our assessment if a topic is worth learning it: that it is most likely wrong. I mean: how could we know? If we are not even aware about our deficits regarding the new topic, how could we possibly tell if that new thing is a hype or not?

Second to that I could imagine that learning about learning-related topics can help us being more open to new topics, since being more competent with learning itself might help reducing resistance to the not so comforting feeling at the beginning of learning something.


To me you likely have to learn continuously but you don't have to learn everything.

The learning can be accidental, because you had to do it anyway or it can be deliberate (you take a training on the topic and choose the technology on purpose for the next project).

And to me, if you are not doing it regulary for some time, you can't hope to get to the concious competance level on all aspects of that technique/framework/topic.

Even 1 or 2 pet project at home, a few dozen hours each of actual work is unlikely to be enough for most people.

To grow, the best seems to be to choose the projects/team/company that do what you are interrested in, with ideal people more experienced than you being able to help and guide you.

And you'll likely never be able to grow to the conscious competance or inconscious competance level for more than a few technos/topic/framework.

As such, it appear critical to me to choose wisely.

As such, it appear critical to me to choose wisely.

Yeah, I agree to this.

But we should not choose on base of wrong information, e.g. our assessment of a topic we not even learned enough about to have an informed opinion.

Otherwise I think that growing involves leaving our comfort zone some times. From this point of view, I'm not convinced of just using predominating interests as a guidance. Apart from that it is often helpful to know something about topics, even if we have not reached higher levels of competence.

Yep, that the issue. An unrelated but key aspect of being in the workplace for me is to define your strategy.

For example when I was youger I was on a quite nice project and after 1.5 year i got the impression I learned most of what there was to learn there. So I asked my boss to give me another mission.

I got one 3 week later, but it was much less interresing. Then later on I finally got hired by another company, but I had to work about 3 years for them to get really interresting projects, to give the time for the managers to trust me.

The thing is, I think that I have learned significantly from the changing projects, using different technologies etc anyway. And it was necessary.

But on the other side, I can't help but say you have to always be on a great project in the company. They kind of project that are interresting to work on, that has visibility in the company, that could be nice on your CV and that is well managed (nice team, nice managers and so on).

So I'll avoid changing if I am currently on a great project in a great team because I'll always learn and have pleasuring experience every days. If I am thinking to change, I'll try to get max information on what to do next before commiting...

I have seen to many nice colleagues that were not happy, asked to changed, got a change and got worse team/manager etc that don't even want to let them go after 1-2 years.

In a sense, it is expected. The bad managers/teams have high turnover because everybody want to leave them. So that were you have the most "opportunities" in the company while people working on a nice project/team tend to stay and people just arround try to get a place there without the position being advertised.

This, obviously isn't the only strategy I guess. You may want to be recognized for being able to do the boring job that has to be done and so on. I know a guy that did the boring job for 2 years and now if offered a management role... But one has to clear on his strategy.

code of conduct - report abuse