82,891
edits
Specialisation: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Segmenting that process and assigning different components to specialists not only makes it possible, but improves it's quality by goosing the expertise each agent one brings to its specialised task. Just as a decathlete cannot expect to compete with event specialists, you can be sure the same generalist responsible for mining, ore extraction, metallurgy, manufacturing, quality control, book keeping, distribution, sales and marketing will not conduct any of these tasks awfully well, and certainly not as well, or quickly, as a specialist might. | Segmenting that process and assigning different components to specialists not only makes it possible, but improves it's quality by goosing the expertise each agent one brings to its specialised task. Just as a decathlete cannot expect to compete with event specialists, you can be sure the same generalist responsible for mining, ore extraction, metallurgy, manufacturing, quality control, book keeping, distribution, sales and marketing will not conduct any of these tasks awfully well, and certainly not as well, or quickly, as a specialist might. | ||
But just as there is for the Laffer curve, there is a specialisation sweet spot. We know human beings are not instruction following automatons. | But just as there is for the Laffer curve, there is a specialisation sweet spot. We know human beings are not instruction-following automatons. Their special skill is is the ability to [[narratise]]. To ''imagine''. Humans are problem-solvers, not instruction-followers. | ||
That sweet spot falls where an individual's expertise, imagination, and problem-solving abilities can be maximally concentrated: there is enough ''depth'' to to test and stretch them, but not so much ''width'' that they are pulled past breaking point. | That sweet spot falls where an individual's expertise, imagination, and problem-solving abilities can be maximally concentrated: there is enough ''depth'' to to test and stretch them, but not so much ''width'' that they are pulled past breaking point. | ||
We should specialise, but only to a point. That point is passed when when | We should specialise, but only to a point. That point is passed when when the [[meatware]] is ''[[boredom|bored]]''. | ||
If a task can be sufficiently articulated and regularised as to be [[boring]], it should be carried out by an agent that scores high on accuracy, speed and the boredom threshold, but low on curiosity, creativity and imagination. | If a task can be sufficiently articulated and regularised as to be [[boring]], it should be carried out by an agent that scores high on accuracy, speed and the boredom threshold, but low on curiosity, creativity and imagination. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
There are such agents: we call them “machines”. | There are such agents: we call them “machines”. | ||
Conversely: if a task cannot be automated, then back it up to the point where it is sufficiently challenging, and the problems concentrated enough, to be demanding and requiring of expertise. | |||
That this may involve greater cost is not the only consideration; there are hidden meta-costs | That this may involve greater cost is not the only consideration; there are hidden meta-costs | ||
— [[wastes]], in fact — associated with segmentation too. There is a lateral cost to segmentation. Every handoff generates waste, requires supervision, involves superstructure which would not otherwise be there. | — [[wastes]], in fact — associated with segmentation too. There is a lateral cost to segmentation. Every handoff generates waste, requires supervision, involves superstructure which would not otherwise be there. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Silo]] | *[[Silo]] | ||