not an expert
May. 20th, 2020 09:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacAs I recall, it was my friend the late Kate Yule who once wrote an article trying to figure out how good a cook she was. I found that I identified precisely with her predicament, so I think I'm on the same level.
What Kate said was, on the one hand there's people who manage to burn a pot of water, don't know what to do with an egg, or find "heat in microwave for 2 minutes" to be a challenge worthy of their mettle (and sometimes take a weird pride in all this). Next to them, people like Kate or I are whizzes, experts, virtuosi.
On the other hand, there's professional chefs. Next to them, we're fumblers, complete beginners.
Somewhere, there's a level of everyday mastery, basic competence and understanding of how the things you do work, but without artistry or complex technique. Put it this way: the kinds of recipes that Julia Child wrote, I'd find very difficult or unnecessarily time-consuming. (My goal in cooking is to have dinner, not to spend time in the kitchen.) But the kind of recipes you see on the backs of packages, or that get published in local newspapers (food columns in major papers are another matter), those are easy and I get a lot of ideas from them.
Same is true with computers and electronics. I have a basic end-user's knowledge of how things work and go together, supplemented - as with cooking - with some hard-earned experience when things didn't go right. That was enough to make me my mother's computer guru, a status true of a lot of children my age. On the other hand, I know professional techies socially, and most of the time when they speak of their jobs I can't even figure out what they're talking about.
Where does that leave me, then? Willing to dive in to deal with certain situations, but always ready to stop when I run up against the limits of my knowledge. Recently I heard it said that I think I know more than I do, and that really hurt, because knowing how much I know and asking for help when matters get beyond there is one thing I always do. For instance I was once tasked with replacing the fill valve in a toilet tank. I figured I could do that myself, and I did. But when the ancient flex water pipe started to leak when I reattached it, I stopped, re-closed the valves, and called a plumber. That I knew I couldn't deal with, and I wasn't too proud to admit it immediately. Something similar happened with B's monitor, where neither the instructions nor the unit's behavior was clear to me, though it was up and working when I was done, if with fragility.
Driving. I'm not a particularly good driver, but I'm competent. I can drive a stick shift, which most people today can't, but that's because I was trained at it at an early stage. What I am really good at is road navigation. I know that not because I feel skilled at it, but because it feels easy, because a vast number of people seem completely helpless at it, and because real experts don't intimidate me as they do in the above fields.
Typing. As a professional secretary, which I temped at for a while, I was no better than moderate. But I was a pretty fast and accurate copy-typist until my hands wore out.
Sports. That's a good case, because (when I could still do active sports) I divided them into two groups: those I was minimally competent at (though never any more than that) and those I couldn't do at all. That's a fundamental distinction not often-enough made. Anything requiring hitting a moving ball with an implement, forget it: tennis, softball, or anything else of either ilk, I'm laughably bad at, like the person who can't boil water. I couldn't hit the ball at all, or make it go anywhere if I accidentally did. But with hand (or foot) is another matter: I could dribble and shoot a soccer ball or basketball in the prescribed manners, so long as there was nobody trying to prevent me. In a game, there always is, so I was of no use in those. My best game of that sort was volleyball, where the opposing players all have to stay on the other side of the net. I also found a knack for golf, where there's an implement but the ball stays still until you hit it. I think I could have developed into a fairly decent amateur if I'd had more of a taste for the game, but I'm not much of a game-player at all, even sedentary ones. I limit myself these days to computer playing of klondike solitaire (at which I think I'm good, because I've heard people say they never win games, whereas I often do) and the occasional tetris (at which I've never gotten above level 10, which is not considered very high by expert standards).
So my question is, does this make sense to you? How do you parse it, and where do you sit on the scale?
What Kate said was, on the one hand there's people who manage to burn a pot of water, don't know what to do with an egg, or find "heat in microwave for 2 minutes" to be a challenge worthy of their mettle (and sometimes take a weird pride in all this). Next to them, people like Kate or I are whizzes, experts, virtuosi.
On the other hand, there's professional chefs. Next to them, we're fumblers, complete beginners.
Somewhere, there's a level of everyday mastery, basic competence and understanding of how the things you do work, but without artistry or complex technique. Put it this way: the kinds of recipes that Julia Child wrote, I'd find very difficult or unnecessarily time-consuming. (My goal in cooking is to have dinner, not to spend time in the kitchen.) But the kind of recipes you see on the backs of packages, or that get published in local newspapers (food columns in major papers are another matter), those are easy and I get a lot of ideas from them.
Same is true with computers and electronics. I have a basic end-user's knowledge of how things work and go together, supplemented - as with cooking - with some hard-earned experience when things didn't go right. That was enough to make me my mother's computer guru, a status true of a lot of children my age. On the other hand, I know professional techies socially, and most of the time when they speak of their jobs I can't even figure out what they're talking about.
Where does that leave me, then? Willing to dive in to deal with certain situations, but always ready to stop when I run up against the limits of my knowledge. Recently I heard it said that I think I know more than I do, and that really hurt, because knowing how much I know and asking for help when matters get beyond there is one thing I always do. For instance I was once tasked with replacing the fill valve in a toilet tank. I figured I could do that myself, and I did. But when the ancient flex water pipe started to leak when I reattached it, I stopped, re-closed the valves, and called a plumber. That I knew I couldn't deal with, and I wasn't too proud to admit it immediately. Something similar happened with B's monitor, where neither the instructions nor the unit's behavior was clear to me, though it was up and working when I was done, if with fragility.
Driving. I'm not a particularly good driver, but I'm competent. I can drive a stick shift, which most people today can't, but that's because I was trained at it at an early stage. What I am really good at is road navigation. I know that not because I feel skilled at it, but because it feels easy, because a vast number of people seem completely helpless at it, and because real experts don't intimidate me as they do in the above fields.
Typing. As a professional secretary, which I temped at for a while, I was no better than moderate. But I was a pretty fast and accurate copy-typist until my hands wore out.
Sports. That's a good case, because (when I could still do active sports) I divided them into two groups: those I was minimally competent at (though never any more than that) and those I couldn't do at all. That's a fundamental distinction not often-enough made. Anything requiring hitting a moving ball with an implement, forget it: tennis, softball, or anything else of either ilk, I'm laughably bad at, like the person who can't boil water. I couldn't hit the ball at all, or make it go anywhere if I accidentally did. But with hand (or foot) is another matter: I could dribble and shoot a soccer ball or basketball in the prescribed manners, so long as there was nobody trying to prevent me. In a game, there always is, so I was of no use in those. My best game of that sort was volleyball, where the opposing players all have to stay on the other side of the net. I also found a knack for golf, where there's an implement but the ball stays still until you hit it. I think I could have developed into a fairly decent amateur if I'd had more of a taste for the game, but I'm not much of a game-player at all, even sedentary ones. I limit myself these days to computer playing of klondike solitaire (at which I think I'm good, because I've heard people say they never win games, whereas I often do) and the occasional tetris (at which I've never gotten above level 10, which is not considered very high by expert standards).
So my question is, does this make sense to you? How do you parse it, and where do you sit on the scale?
no subject
Date: 2020-05-20 06:08 pm (UTC)All that plus artistry and a fair amount of technique: sewing. I have done tailoring and bespoke fittings in my day. Not lately, alas. Drawing. I'm actually pretty good, whether it be cartoons or sketching from life.
Things I have mastered and have basic or more competence at, but no clue how it works, I think it might be magic: driving a car, managing computer software issues, taking good photographs.
Lack of basic competence: any sort of household or motor repair. I'm unable to cope with plumbing or electrical devices when they go bad. I may be able to change a lightbulb, but I can't rewire a lamp that's gone haywire. Also cannot change a tire or use jumper cables.
no subject
Date: 2020-05-21 03:20 am (UTC)I'm a really good basic stage electrician with memory/dyslexia problems that have ensured I never became the top of my field. That said, on my last job a person I respect a great deal was asking me advanced technical questions for which I had an good answer.
Cooking is often a joy, but at most I'm an advanced, adventuresome amateur.
Yes I can do plumbing, but under protest. Mostly this is because modern plumbing requires little more than screwing things together. Some connections are even "snap together" so all you do is shove the hose on and it clicks into place. All right, all right so I can look at PVC pipe and tell you what diameter it is...
I think that what you are "good" at is a combination of how your individual brain perceives the world, what part of it is "broken" (and we are ALL broken in one way or another) and the things we were exposed to and allowed to learn as young folks. Individual motivation plays a part of course, anything you are truly determined to do counts!
no subject
Date: 2020-05-21 06:42 am (UTC)Sports: I was fit as a kid, but not particularly coordinated or fast. I took to backpacking and have done some epic hikes. I hope to do more. I've done a little bit of rock climbing, enough to know that I love it, but I have not spent enough time at it to become good.
I had all the shop classes: woodworking, metal shop, machine shop, electric, plus drafting. Spent two summers working on boats and became pretty good at sanding, painting and varnishing. I also have some construction experience, can shingle roofs, put up drywall, do basic plumbing. None of it is really my idea of fun.
I am an expert programmer. I know people who are better. But they are geniuses, I'm just an expert. I am most definitely not an expert at system administration and not interested in becoming one. I would rather design software so it doesn't need system administrators.
no subject
Date: 2020-05-22 07:11 am (UTC)I'd say "vaguely capable" in that I can do things like brown meat, caramelize onions, and so on but I may need to watch a YouTube video to refresh my memory of what "done" looks like.
Computing: I have literally designed the server and network architecture for a high-throughput genome sequencing facility, which is basically a data factory. I'm a decent but not stunning programmer/software engineer; my skills run more to the systems administrator/systems engineer/Site Reliability Engineer side of the house. Until recently, my home network was set up with multiple virtual networks sharing a physical architecture...in a 2 bedroom apartment.
Driving: I do it when I need to, but have never owned a car and am badly out of practice on manual transmissions. (Also, I learned stick in a Jaguar E-type, so the clutch I'm used to is a bit different from the one in a Honda Fit or whatever.)
Household practicalities: I can sew a button back on, replace a toilet flapper valve, or swap an electrical outlet. Beyond those, I usually know my limits well enough to avoid finding them the hard way. Car repairs, nope.
Sports: I've never been very coordinated, hated PE in school, and don't enjoy racing on foot or in a pool or wherever. I tried fencing at one point (pun not intended) but didn't keep it up long enough to get even passable.