An expert is someone who knows some of the worst mistakes, which can be made, in a very narrow field.
I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside of their special subject.
I have yet to meet members of a leadership team who I thought lacked the intelligence or the domain expertise required to be successful. I've met many, however, who failed to foster organizational health. Their companies were riddled with politics, various forms of dysfunction, and general confusion about their direction and mission.
When I came to MIT, there were four rubrics: science, art, design, and technology. And as you entered your degree, whether it was a master's or a Ph.D., if you were a citizen in one domain, you were a traveler in the other.
I'm a football manager, a football coach; I can't be expected to pontificate on everything.
I am not supposed to be an expert in every field. I am supposed to be an expert in picking experts.
I think of 'data science' as a flag that was planted at the intersection of several different disciplines that have not always existed in the same place. Statistics, computer science, domain expertise, and what I usually call 'hacking,' though I don't mean the 'evil' kind of hacking.
To achieve some depth in your field requires a lot of sacrifices.
The word smart is not applied to all professions, even if you are smart in that profession. No one talks about smart lawyers. They may say a brilliant lawyer. They'll talk about a creative artist. Smart is saved for scientists. It just is. It's not even really applied to medical doctors. It applies to scientists in the lab figuring out what hadn't been figured out before.
Computer science education cannot make anybody an expert programmer any more than studying brushes and pigment can make somebody an expert painter.
The essence of the expert is that his field shall be very special and narrow: one of the ways in which he inspires confidence is to rigidly limit himself to the little toe; he would scarcely venture an off-the-record opinion on an infected little finger.
I had to create a team of people who had worked in this industry for other banks. What I brought to that team was ICICI's strategic thinking, but when it came to domain knowledge or product nuances, I had to learn from the team.
As a playwright, you can cover a lot of waterfront without being able to hold your own against an expert in any of those areas. I have no illusions about that.
In my view, the fact that computers caught up to humans and completely dominate humans in chess and some other domains already, that says there's evidence that, yes, in principle, they can be better programmers than humans.
Having spent five years in the technological domain, I see the experiences in the entertainment industry from a technological perspective.
Very narrow areas of expertise can be very productive. Develop your own profile. Develop your own niche.
What is John Arriaga's circle of competence? Is it real estate? No! Is it U.S. real estate? No! Is it California real estate? No! Northern California real estate? No! Only real estate around Stanford. His circle of competence is this small.
The truth is that intelligence, knowledge, and domain expertise are vastly overrated as the driving forces behind competitive advantage and sustainable success.
We're very careful to select what domains we'll build to serve. I completely believe in domain-specific architectures.
By analogy, if we were to develop a soccer team, then we would not invite basketball and volleyball players to the try outs. We would invite soccer players to apply.
Wired people should know something about wires.
