Ask HN: Trapped by knowledge
I'm a tech lead for a small group of developers and sysadmins. I often find that even though they are experts in their own domain, I am able to help them to resolve problems in specific areas for which I have little or no knowledge. I find it surprising that they have not arrived upon the solution themselves.
I describe it as being trapped by knowledge. Those that I am helping appear to have passed some magical threshold of knowledge, beyond which they stop asking "stupid" questions, and instead rely only upon what they know. That's where I step in. I ask those stupid questions, or I do a quick Google search, and more often than not I find a solution very quickly. Maybe my team experience the same thing with me, and I just don't recognise it. Or maybe I'm just the sort of person who doesn't mind asking those stupid questions.
Is this a known phenomenon? Has any research been done in this area? I'd be interested to know if anyone else experiences the same thing.
(
10 comments
| 22 points
| on HN
)
Another example: our Java and QA guys wondered why they couldn't get Jmeter to do Kerberos authentication. I quickly Googled and found that their Jmeter used a version pf Apache's HTTP library which couldn't do Kerberos. They just needed to update.
I'm constantly asked 'quick' questions (unfortunately quick questions tend to have the longer answers).
I ask them dumb questions and ask them to ask dumb questions (why, where, what) but it's taken to be insincere. Perhaps it's just straight fatigue that I find difficult to hide.
I realise I need a new job, even if its giant drop in salary.
Chances are you don't even realize you have the relevant skill (there's a thing called "expert blind spot") so you also have hard time articulating what exactly you're doing.
There is in fact quite a lot of research on the subject. Might want to start with "Sources of Power" by Gary Klein, and "The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance" (which I haven't read yet but gets cited a lot).
One day he was asked to estimate the memory consumption of a new project. He did it by writing a simulator that would fill a data structure with random data. Each data size had a specific probability to be generated. Then he would measure memory used.
Why didn't he simply compute the total size ? That's basic math/CS.
There are stupid people and smart people. Being expert doesn't mean they are smart.
But certainly they should have got an estimate first - given a probability and size.
And there was no compression or anything fancy.
If you generate N data (N being choosen randomly in a uniform distribution between 100 and 200), and your data size is S (taken randomly between 50 and 500)..
The best, average and worst case scenario are easy enough to compute, aren't they ? Of course there was more than two variables (maybe 5), but it was not that hard.
I think it has something to do with confidence. Confident people don't care too much about being wrong - they are confident in what they know and aren't concerned about being labeled "an idiot."