Yesterday, I had a very interesting discussion / lecture with Rolf Dobeli through a class I'm currently taking. In the class, we came across the concept of a "circle of competence", which is below defined and explored. In particular, I felt it very similar to an experience I've come across (both as the one experiencing and the audience) multiple times whereby one sits up straighter, begins to speak faster and more freely, and overall feels as if there are more thoughts than can be adequately expressed within the limits of human speech. This article is an exploration of that and how it might tie into a couple of the other concepts I've been exploring. Ironically, it's also a return to the roots of the purpose for this blog and for me to return to writing after being in and out the past couple weeks.
As described in the intro, the "circle of competence" is perhaps a bit of a nebulous concept. Given this, let us begin by defining the idea of a "circle of competence", at least for the purposes of this article.
What is the circle of competence?
The circle of competence, formally, is the set of topics or ideas that one has enough knowledge about such that they can be considered an "expert of the field". More concretely, I would argue that this threshold is reached when one is roughly able to educate someone with no background knowledge but above-average learning ability to half of their own level with no time constraint. This definition certainly leaves a lot to be desired; I will address some of the main points below.
Qualifying knowledge, intuitive knowledge, and inductive biases
The threshold of knowledge that we describe above is notably inclusive of all types of knowledge, including specific semantic and procedural items, explicit experiences, empirical intuitions, and implicit or inherent talent (or in other worrds, inherent biases). As such, it represents a very generalised view of knowledge that is intentionally inclusive of all kinds of understandings regardless of how they are acquired. This will become important as we move further into the teaching and conveying side of the circle of competence.
Teaching ability
Given the aforementioned idea of knowledge, it then becomes clear that not all of the above is equally conveyed, and indeed it appears that a very self-aware, metacognitive teacher who is strong at conveying abstract intuitions is required to even begin to approach the ability required to convey roughly half of the ability of an experienced, well-learned expert in any field. However, I believe that this highlights a key aspect of understanding in a circle of competence that traditional, purely meritocratic perspectives drop off; that is, when considering expertise, it is equally important to have the knowledge oneself as it is to understand what the trends and inductive biases are in your field and be able to either leverage or circumvent them in order to convey points with utmost crispness and elegance.
One simple example of this is most university professors. It is no secret that, especially at more prestigious institutions, professors are often some of the strongest and most prized individuals in their respective fields (given their incredibly long and high-density tenures). However, many professors struggle to convey ideas that are intended to be simple and foundational in their fields to students simply because the understandings that they derive are built on inductive biases, alternate mental shortcuts, or other constructs that students do not have, thus preventing the students from understanding what the professor is setting out. Though these professors are clearly still in their circle of competence, I find it important to highlight the other aspect of expertise that tends to be left out.
In essence, you can think of either an extremely tall house of cards (where height is the chief factor of competence) or an extremely solid house of cards that is structurally very sound (where desnity is the chief factor of competence).
Detecting others' circles of competence
Given this definition of a circle of competence, it then becomes relatively easy to determine where one's circle of competence likely lies:
A circle of competence is a topic within which you have a uniquely deep and explainable understanding, or where you are doing uniquely excellent and novel work. This definition is intentionally weakly qualified (i.e. what defines "novel"? it could be truly innovative, or it could simply highlight new insights in areas that old work explored thoroughly but never got to) and also highlights the circular relationship between the two (if you understand something deeply, it is more likely for you to be able to do excellent work). However, I also believe it's important to highlight that one of these is clearly a means to the second; it is extremely unlikely for you to do highly excellent and innovative work without a deep understanding of the topics that you want to explore.
Using the circle of competence as a lead for work fulfillment
In addition to the above, this definition of a circle of competence directly leads to a sort of "corollary" when searching for one's own circle(s) of competence. The idea is to be inducted into the "ring of competence" for any particular topic, one must be able to sustainably (or at least reliably) produce excellent work at some nontrivial rate. This implies, as above, that you have an extremely solid understanding of the field, which is usually conditioned on either talent (rare) or dense time spent in the field (more common). This time is usually only achievable if the field is a true, thick, and fulfilling desire (or critical path) for someone, as I have addressed before in my piece on fulfillment as well.
In case neither of those pieces were particularly striking to you, I will include some highlights below:
- a la Wanting by Luke Burgis -- A thick desire is one not easily swayed by mimesis, i.e. modelling your desires off someone else's because they have something you want.
- Something fulfilling to you should likely be very low in energy cost but high in perceived return for you, as in the Naval Ravikant quote found in the epigraph of the fulfillment piece.
- You should be secure enough in a particular experience to be willing to engage in uncertain vulnerability; that is, the feeling of "I'm not sure what's going to come out of this and that's perfectly fine by me"
Appendix: stoicism vs. caring deeply
One last thing I feel the need to add as a result of the Rolf Dobeli talk as well is the idea that fulfillment in an experience or choice should engender an experience akin to stoicism, defined as the absence of toxic or negative emotion. Note that this does not necessarily discount the existence of frustration when viewed through a growth lens (since I qualify frustration and struggle as a positive indicator of progression in most cases, i.e. "growth pains") and also highlights the cognitive dissonance and discomfort that comes with doing something mimetic, however subtle it might be. This is an idea I'm more open to exploring because it also feels at odds with the idea that you will care deeply (at an identity level) about something fulfilling to you and this care will necessarily then engender deep emotions (which may be negative). Please reach out if you have interesting ideas about the above!