Rather than saying expert and non-expert, therefore, I think
the more useful distinction is between subject - matter expert and systems design expert.
Not exact matches
There are other
distinctions more useful and longer - lasting.
(I guess one could propose a version of (b) without making the
distinction between authoritarian and democratic regimes: I think the
distinction a
useful one, and (b) would be much
more likely to go wrong without it).
My purpose in pointing out these differences is simply to draw a
useful line of
distinction and acknowledge that teachers of skill - driven and fact - driven courses probably will find it
more challenging to come up with the type of problem scenarios described earlier.
Ultimately, it's important for investors to make the
distinction between short - term risk — where beta and price volatility are
useful — and longer - term, fundamental risk, where big - picture risk factors are
more telling.
Is there a
useful or meaningful
distinction any
more between a signature and an act of assent (at least when the signature is intended to show assent)?
More generally, the
distinction you seem to be setting up simply does not exist, and to the extent it does, is not a
useful distinction.
This is what I want to walk around in this piece, questions such as: whether we, too, should pick up information with long tongs the way the author of the quote does; whether the information - knowledge
distinction is right,
useful, productive — whether the one is mere and the other
more; whether the culture, or our cul - de-sac of it at least, really will go pop.