(This comment written as if directed to Dunkin, so that’s who “you” is)
Second on “Loved the format, could use small explainers sometimes”. I did not actually attempt the exercise, because I honestly came here from seeing LoganStrohl’s comment and wanted to see what this weird format post was. I am not sure I have any skills where I can do a good job evaluating confidence and competence separately, as some other commenters noted.
I’d bet it’s different per person, but I couldn’t get a good lock on what some of the graphs meant[1]. I didn’t understand what the “danger zone”[2], dependency[3], and sufficiency[4] graphs were pointing at..
I also couldn’t understand why the “gains in one optimizes another” graph returned to the baseline[5]. It seemed the skill-practicer would be well suited to attempt to continue along the “correct” lines. This might be cleared up if instead the competence dimension, after the undershoot, shot up really quickly. Looking again to write this, it seems like you kind of did this, just with a different scale, but I didn’t see that without pretty close focus, and I don’t think I did a bad job, so it was probably completely missed by some people skimming.
Though I feel I could almost see what most of these meant. If Dunkin reads this: I’m actually super curious what these meant and wouldn’t mind being told/corrected
I really couldn’t understand well enough to make a coherent sentence out of it, but my feeling is attached to the concept of scaling/normalizing data.
(This comment written as if directed to Dunkin, so that’s who “you” is)
Second on “Loved the format, could use small explainers sometimes”. I did not actually attempt the exercise, because I honestly came here from seeing LoganStrohl’s comment and wanted to see what this weird format post was. I am not sure I have any skills where I can do a good job evaluating confidence and competence separately, as some other commenters noted.
I’d bet it’s different per person, but I couldn’t get a good lock on what some of the graphs meant[1]. I didn’t understand what the “danger zone”[2], dependency[3], and sufficiency[4] graphs were pointing at..
I also couldn’t understand why the “gains in one optimizes another” graph returned to the baseline[5]. It seemed the skill-practicer would be well suited to attempt to continue along the “correct” lines. This might be cleared up if instead the competence dimension, after the undershoot, shot up really quickly. Looking again to write this, it seems like you kind of did this, just with a different scale, but I didn’t see that without pretty close focus, and I don’t think I did a bad job, so it was probably completely missed by some people skimming.
Though I feel I could almost see what most of these meant. If Dunkin reads this: I’m actually super curious what these meant and wouldn’t mind being told/corrected
I took the graph to be a heatmap where redder means badder
I really couldn’t understand well enough to make a coherent sentence out of it, but my feeling is attached to the concept of scaling/normalizing data.
I took to be questioning the goodness of the two highlighted datapoints
The y=x line