Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

The decline of real expertise in Europe

I went to school for a year in Slovakia and one of the things I appreciated about it, was that nerdiness was allowed. Everybody really wanted to learn how to program (and they were good at it). Might have been because I went to a Gymnazium there and a comprehensive here, but I think there was just more respect for such skills.

And now that whole scene (server-side and client-side programming) has exploded with a new “paradigm” every month

As you mention, software and hardware is changing faster than it ever used to, and expertise goes out of date very quickly. A radio amateur from 1980 would have been able to pick up any radio from 1930 onwards and have a stab at fixing it. Any modern radio is a box of magic that probably works better than its predecessors, but is much less accessible. On the other hand in medicine and surgery, people are specialising far more than ever before so it’s not all a one-way street (just try not to have more than one medical problem at a time). And even if I can’t find a carburettor expert in person, perhaps I don’t need one because of all the expertise I can find online.

Last Edited by kwlf at 26 Jul 17:42

Try employing people with mechanical skills!
In the past two months I interviewed 25 applicants, offered 13 jobs, 10 of whom declined, two of which accepted and never turned up and one who lasted 7 days because he “didn’t appreciate not having his own dedicated workspace”.
And before you jump to conclusions, I’m offering very competive salaries.

Last Edited by Stickandrudderman at 26 Jul 19:29
Forever learning
EGTB

I like reading books. To be an expert, I ought to devote myself to the same book repeatedly, analysing, comparing, researching, etc. I might go to a second reading years later, and pick up new or different themes or ideas, but other than The Lord of the Rings (approx every other year, age 8-20) I prefer to be a generalist. Being an expert takes dedication.

For my very first university essay, I was keen to prove myself and did a lot of research outside the reading list. Marked and returned, one whole page had a line though it and ‘NOT RELEVANT’ in block capitals. (The offending idea, properly referenced, was that one of the causes of the French Revolution was a resurgence of the oppressed Gauls against the Frankish aristocracy.) After this I gave up and did the bare minimum, loosely plagiarising the set texts. In conclusion: of course, my marks were good, but I didn’t learn much. Please don’t say this paragraph isn’t relevant 🥲

At work, I should like to think I’m an expert in both what I do and in the wider market. The funny thing is that all my technical knowledge is freely available on the internet; all it requires is someone sufficiently interested and motivated to research, evaluate, analyse, summarise, and organise. Any idiot could do it, but I’m the only one that has. There is a constraint from the commercial nature, in that I can’t really disagree with customers or divulge much to competitors.

Frustratingly, I occasionally google something and the only relevant result is my own website. This is a recent social phenomenon where the ease of information access reduces the need for learning and memory, which I fear I’m succumbing to. There simply isn’t the need to retain vast amounts of knowledge in the majority of jobs or hobbies when you can just check your phone.

Of course, experts are also devalued by the multitude and diversity of opinions and even facts on the internet, anti-vaxxers being a prime example.

My favourite Sherlock Holmes quotation, which I try to live by: ‘nothing is irrelevant to the enquiring mind’

EGHO-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

I’m intruigued.

Peter wrote:

So few people understand engineering (mechanical and electronic) and physics at a “real” level nowadays

Being a patent attorney for profession and vocation I really can’t disagree more. The number of patent applications per year keeps continuously rising in Europe and over the world. And there are so many people so incredibly intelligent and handy on what they’re doing that I’m just proud to work with them. And this is not limited to university professors or studied people in general. There are so many small ideas that have their potential.

What is changing is that nowadays a huge proportion of the population has access to enough free time to think about new ideas. And it is my opinion that this might lead to the impression, that under the massive amount of “tiny” ideas it’s getting hard to identify the big inventions. For example, the car is everywhere, so who cares about how the details are on how to improve recharging of electric cars, to give an example. Or how to improve brake systems so that they get less hot and produce less particulate matter.

And how do you think that the James Webb Space Telescope has reached its orbit if not for people understanding engineering and physics at a real level?

There is a fraction of the population that doesn’t care and that needs less abilities to live and survive nowadays than, say, 100 years ago. But the fraction of people studying and gaining knowledge keeps also increasing.

Germany

@capitaine

Intrigued as well. What do you do?

always learning
LO__, Austria

You have an interesting job, UdoR

I think one is dealing with a selected audience. I filed a patent application 30 years ago. After some back-and-to messing around, it was rejected on grounds of prior art. This of course you will be intimately familiar with, being a hugely controversial topic, with vast numbers of “bogus patents” which involve obvious prior art but the patent examiner failed to spot it, and as there was no commercial angle, nobody bothered to dispute it. But it cost me 4 digits back then, much of which was the searches. Today, the searches cost much less, or nothing. I looked at some stuff quite recently, and may still file a patent but will have to build it first, because it needs to actually work I would expect more people filing patents today than in the past simply because the system is more accessible – even if most of the really clever simple stuff (like the classic ballpoint pen) has already been done, so patents, especially commercially relevant ones, are increasingly variations of previous ones.

Those who build the JW telescope are a specialised team who stood on the shoulders of giants of the past. I don’t think this is related to how much there is in terms of basic electrical or mechanical skills evident in the general population.

One thing which has changed is that smart people are ever deeper inside companies, so are less visible. So many companies make sure that nobody with a brain is accessible on the phone or email.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

So many companies make sure that nobody with a brain is accessible on the phone or email.

Just a few days ago we reviewed the stay-interviews from our infra team. One thing nearly 90% hated was interacting with the customers , so this seems to be something that people with brains also appreciate :)

EETU, Estonia

Peter wrote:

After some back-and-to messing around, it was rejected on grounds of prior art.

Now that I would call lack of experience of the patent attorney involved.

Peter wrote:

which involve obvious prior art but the patent examiner failed to spot it

The question of obviousness is topic of maybe the most impassionate discussions regarding patents. I believe that you will find any aspect of any “new” invention somewhere in the world in some form of disclosure. Just like in a Donald Duck comic

What matters is if someone would have been able to find it and whether it was obvious to implement it to the “sum of features” that are defined in a patent claim.

Peter wrote:

because it needs to actually work

Nope. The invention has to be described in a manner that the reader is convinced that it is executable. But, again, a patent attorney not being able to describe an invention in an executable manner lacks experience, or motivation.

Some years ago I filed a time machine (no joke, it’s quantum cryptography violating bell’s equation) and it got granted. Non-executability wasn’t any question.

Last Edited by UdoR at 28 Jul 13:42
Germany

Nope. The invention has to be described in a manner that the reader is convinced that it is executable.

The notable exception being perpetual motion machines, which they won’t consider unless you supply a working model.

Arguably its rarely going to be worth patenting something that can’t be made to work, even if the patent is accepted.

Last Edited by kwlf at 28 Jul 13:50
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top