Combine searching and training to make the task not impossible. Use/make groups that have more skills than exist in an individual (yet). Do we ‘basically understand paradigm changes/interdisciplinary efforts?’ If you need a test you don’t have, maybe you should make that test. Pay attention to growth—if you want someone (or a group) better than the best in the world, you need someone who is/can grow, past that point. Maybe you’ll have to create a team that’s better than the best (that currently exist) in the world—possibly people who are currently working in different fields.
1. Hybrid: searching and training
I also sometimes want more-than-one bit of search in just one skill. For instance, if I want someone in the top 1⁄32 of writing skill, then that’s 5 bits of search.
You could also search for a few bits, and try training the rest.
2. Change the constraints to make the problem solvable (use groups instead of individuals)
There are ways around that: skills are not independent, and sometimes I can make do with someone who has most of the skills. But the basic picture still holds: as I raise my bar, selection becomes exponentially more difficult.
Sounds like figuring out teams might be the way to go here.
3. Are interdisciplinary or paradigm changing project ‘problems-we-basically-understand’?
Selection breaks down when we need people with rare skills, and especially when we need people with many independent skills—exactly the sort of people we’re likely to need for problems-we-basically-don’t-understand.
This might also be an issue if you combine a bunch of ‘things we understand’ into one project, or want to make major change, like (maybe) semiconductor lithography.
4. Can you build what you don’t have?
And if we have a test, then we could just forget about training and instead use the test to select.
Maybe you have to develop one, and afterwards you could use it, but now you have people who are trained.
5. Asymptotic growth
But this technique puts a cap on “how good” we can select for—we can’t ask for someone better than the best in the world.
Unless you get someone who will get better over time AND they’re (among) the best in the world.
6. Select for/Build a team.
But if we want top-level collaborators in many skills, then we just have to figure out how to do it. Selection does not scale that way.
Mentioned this in 2, though it seems like a different thing than the rest of the post—which is about getting one person with a lot of strong/rare traits, instead of people (from different fields?) who can work together to the same or better effect. (If you want a lot of stuff done, arguably that is a fundamental cap, and larger groups will be needed once you select too hard for that—though how this plays into automation/tools might matter a lot, depending on the area.)
TL:DR;
Combine searching and training to make the task not impossible. Use/make groups that have more skills than exist in an individual (yet). Do we ‘basically understand paradigm changes/interdisciplinary efforts?’ If you need a test you don’t have, maybe you should make that test. Pay attention to growth—if you want someone (or a group) better than the best in the world, you need someone who is/can grow, past that point. Maybe you’ll have to create a team that’s better than the best (that currently exist) in the world—possibly people who are currently working in different fields.
1. Hybrid: searching and training
You could also search for a few bits, and try training the rest.
2. Change the constraints to make the problem solvable (use groups instead of individuals)
Sounds like figuring out teams might be the way to go here.
3. Are interdisciplinary or paradigm changing project ‘problems-we-basically-understand’?
This might also be an issue if you combine a bunch of ‘things we understand’ into one project, or want to make major change, like (maybe) semiconductor lithography.
4. Can you build what you don’t have?
Maybe you have to develop one, and afterwards you could use it, but now you have people who are trained.
5. Asymptotic growth
Unless you get someone who will get better over time AND they’re (among) the best in the world.
6. Select for/Build a team.
Mentioned this in 2, though it seems like a different thing than the rest of the post—which is about getting one person with a lot of strong/rare traits, instead of people (from different fields?) who can work together to the same or better effect. (If you want a lot of stuff done, arguably that is a fundamental cap, and larger groups will be needed once you select too hard for that—though how this plays into automation/tools might matter a lot, depending on the area.)