i don’t find this statement, “If I ask you questions about something you claim to be an expert in, you should be able to break it down for me even if I’m starting at zero knowledge,” to be universally true.
i know plenty of people that are highly competent but cannot for the life of them teach, instruct, or break down the concepts that they are highly competent in. being able to teach someone is a separate from competence (and a competency in it of itself). that’s why teaching, coaching, trainers, instructors, etc. are entirely separate careers from professionals who actually practice their discipline.
i consider myself to be highly competent with snowboarding for example, and my sister asked me to teach her, and i just could not muster anything more than, “idk bro you just do it.” people who are highly competent in creative arts are notorious for this, simply breaking down their competence to, “having an eye for it.”
now i think you’re not entirely wrong when you say a lot of highly competent people can break down problems into understandable bits. there’s certainly an overlap between competence and being able to break down their concepts that one is competent in. but they’re still two separate things. so being able to break down a concept isn’t an absolute measure to gauge one’s competence. it’s only one dimension or indicator of it.
This is a good point! I probably overemphasize verbal intelligence. The people who are highly competent do have a clear understanding of their skill/domain internally but aren't necessarily good at explaining/teaching it, but since I deliberately look for competence indicators I probably miss this group entirely.
This touches on what my career coach told me when I was searching for a new career path. I’m one of those “I’m interested in everything” type people but she would ask, “what comes easy to you? What do you have a ton of knowledge around and you could talk easily about it?” That advice landed me in a career that I never saw for myself originally but it feels so peaceful and secure
I feel like there's also a systemic lens that could be applied here, in that "competence" is projected onto some but has to be earned by others. As a concept it seems to me more like a negotiation between parties than something inherent, in that it can only reveal itself in an environment that allows and gives space to it.
Or maybe I'm hardcore projecting. I feel like recently I've realised there are a few skills I'm actually very competent in (including writing!) but I've so often been faced with environments where that competence has been doubted (because of factors outside of my control, like how I'm perceived due to my race, queerness, etc.), that I find myself feeling the need to "prove" myself, versus just settling into what I know. I probably many times have given off an air of not wanting to be "found out", when actually there's nothing to find, just me being good at something but being hyper-aware that others are conditioned to believe I won't be.
Anyway - beautiful piece. I'm happy to read that you are internalising the idea that you are a brilliant writer. To me it couldn't be more obvious :-)
Sometimes confidence comes across as a proxy for competence. But sometimes this charisma is being faked on purpose (or worse, the person believes in their own bs).
I'm thinking of a time when I thought Jordan Peterson seemed very articulate and clear about his ideas. But I lost interest in him when he seemed to get into patterns like "But what does belief mean?" and "What does God mean?" A lot of public intellectuals seem to fall into this trap where they seem really clear and open to exploration when they're actually defending their ideas fiercely by refusing to go to places that could change their minds.
How do you tell apart this charisma from real competence and clarity, especially parasocially?
I think there's a difference between "what this person is saying seems plausible" and "I'm directly comparing my understanding of this topic to the one they are presenting, finding where they match, and actively reconciling differences" which feels more active and requires critical consideration of what they're saying. Internet personalities are very charismatic/confident but I usually look past the vibe wrapper to get at the content and see if it's logically coherent. And also develop the awareness of the incentives that lead them to want to appear a certain way or say certain things.
Agree that comparing current understanding with the content they are presenting is a good way of going beyond vibe check. Maybe part of the problem is that this needs a certain level of competence and awareness in itself. Or at least a framework that goes "I don't know much about this field, but that doesn't mean anyone who sounds more confident than me is more competent. They need to pass x, y, and z tests for me to take them seriously."
I'm also thinking about the piece you wrote on charisma. I've had experiences in the past where I've been a sucker for charisma in areas I have low familiarity with. Especially in fields where there's gatekeeping and strong intrigue about "how does it feel to be part of the in-group?", you might have to put your faith in some individual to begin with. How does one protect against bad actor charisma in these situations? (Maybe this is what cult leaders leverage?)
Hi there - I don’t have an answer to this, but wanted to affirm the question (also, I had a similar intellectual rendezvous with Jordan Peterson lol).
I wonder if defending ourselves against bad faith charismatic experts is about being in conversation with their critics/haters - or anyone more likely to see their faults / less likely to be blinded by their charisma halo.
If it’s someone we know personally, or we can’t find a critic, we could introduce them to friend we know/trust who can suss them out from an outside perspective.
(low-key this is probably why gossiping has social value. it’s one of the best ways to get third party information on someone who is masterful at impression management.)
I agree with this! Easy to be fooled if not familiar with the topic but asking around (either in personal network for people who are knowledgeable about the thing, or finding such people online who seem trustworthy) is usually the right thing to do. In general though, bad actor charisma feels really icky so I navigate by that. Like if it feels like they *want something from me* (e.g. money, attention) I'm less likely to think they're acting for my good
Haha I realized I've been unconsciously doing this for a while now. When I find myself getting enamored with an online personality, I google "[Online personality] criticism reddit" and it always brings something up.
A friend of mine does the second thing you said – he sends over videos of people to me and asks "What do you think? Is this guy legit?" Huh. Interesting that you identified solutions I wasn't even paying attention to...
i don’t find this statement, “If I ask you questions about something you claim to be an expert in, you should be able to break it down for me even if I’m starting at zero knowledge,” to be universally true.
i know plenty of people that are highly competent but cannot for the life of them teach, instruct, or break down the concepts that they are highly competent in. being able to teach someone is a separate from competence (and a competency in it of itself). that’s why teaching, coaching, trainers, instructors, etc. are entirely separate careers from professionals who actually practice their discipline.
i consider myself to be highly competent with snowboarding for example, and my sister asked me to teach her, and i just could not muster anything more than, “idk bro you just do it.” people who are highly competent in creative arts are notorious for this, simply breaking down their competence to, “having an eye for it.”
now i think you’re not entirely wrong when you say a lot of highly competent people can break down problems into understandable bits. there’s certainly an overlap between competence and being able to break down their concepts that one is competent in. but they’re still two separate things. so being able to break down a concept isn’t an absolute measure to gauge one’s competence. it’s only one dimension or indicator of it.
This is a good point! I probably overemphasize verbal intelligence. The people who are highly competent do have a clear understanding of their skill/domain internally but aren't necessarily good at explaining/teaching it, but since I deliberately look for competence indicators I probably miss this group entirely.
This touches on what my career coach told me when I was searching for a new career path. I’m one of those “I’m interested in everything” type people but she would ask, “what comes easy to you? What do you have a ton of knowledge around and you could talk easily about it?” That advice landed me in a career that I never saw for myself originally but it feels so peaceful and secure
I feel like there's also a systemic lens that could be applied here, in that "competence" is projected onto some but has to be earned by others. As a concept it seems to me more like a negotiation between parties than something inherent, in that it can only reveal itself in an environment that allows and gives space to it.
Or maybe I'm hardcore projecting. I feel like recently I've realised there are a few skills I'm actually very competent in (including writing!) but I've so often been faced with environments where that competence has been doubted (because of factors outside of my control, like how I'm perceived due to my race, queerness, etc.), that I find myself feeling the need to "prove" myself, versus just settling into what I know. I probably many times have given off an air of not wanting to be "found out", when actually there's nothing to find, just me being good at something but being hyper-aware that others are conditioned to believe I won't be.
Anyway - beautiful piece. I'm happy to read that you are internalising the idea that you are a brilliant writer. To me it couldn't be more obvious :-)
Sometimes confidence comes across as a proxy for competence. But sometimes this charisma is being faked on purpose (or worse, the person believes in their own bs).
I'm thinking of a time when I thought Jordan Peterson seemed very articulate and clear about his ideas. But I lost interest in him when he seemed to get into patterns like "But what does belief mean?" and "What does God mean?" A lot of public intellectuals seem to fall into this trap where they seem really clear and open to exploration when they're actually defending their ideas fiercely by refusing to go to places that could change their minds.
How do you tell apart this charisma from real competence and clarity, especially parasocially?
I think there's a difference between "what this person is saying seems plausible" and "I'm directly comparing my understanding of this topic to the one they are presenting, finding where they match, and actively reconciling differences" which feels more active and requires critical consideration of what they're saying. Internet personalities are very charismatic/confident but I usually look past the vibe wrapper to get at the content and see if it's logically coherent. And also develop the awareness of the incentives that lead them to want to appear a certain way or say certain things.
Agree that comparing current understanding with the content they are presenting is a good way of going beyond vibe check. Maybe part of the problem is that this needs a certain level of competence and awareness in itself. Or at least a framework that goes "I don't know much about this field, but that doesn't mean anyone who sounds more confident than me is more competent. They need to pass x, y, and z tests for me to take them seriously."
I'm also thinking about the piece you wrote on charisma. I've had experiences in the past where I've been a sucker for charisma in areas I have low familiarity with. Especially in fields where there's gatekeeping and strong intrigue about "how does it feel to be part of the in-group?", you might have to put your faith in some individual to begin with. How does one protect against bad actor charisma in these situations? (Maybe this is what cult leaders leverage?)
Hi there - I don’t have an answer to this, but wanted to affirm the question (also, I had a similar intellectual rendezvous with Jordan Peterson lol).
I wonder if defending ourselves against bad faith charismatic experts is about being in conversation with their critics/haters - or anyone more likely to see their faults / less likely to be blinded by their charisma halo.
If it’s someone we know personally, or we can’t find a critic, we could introduce them to friend we know/trust who can suss them out from an outside perspective.
(low-key this is probably why gossiping has social value. it’s one of the best ways to get third party information on someone who is masterful at impression management.)
I agree with this! Easy to be fooled if not familiar with the topic but asking around (either in personal network for people who are knowledgeable about the thing, or finding such people online who seem trustworthy) is usually the right thing to do. In general though, bad actor charisma feels really icky so I navigate by that. Like if it feels like they *want something from me* (e.g. money, attention) I'm less likely to think they're acting for my good
Haha I realized I've been unconsciously doing this for a while now. When I find myself getting enamored with an online personality, I google "[Online personality] criticism reddit" and it always brings something up.
A friend of mine does the second thing you said – he sends over videos of people to me and asks "What do you think? Is this guy legit?" Huh. Interesting that you identified solutions I wasn't even paying attention to...