Do people who deny knowledge learned from books as "book learning" over estimate the value of knowledge gained from experience?

submitted by [deleted] from (self.whatever)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jet199Instigatrix 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, you need both.

You have to have real world experience to even pick up on some things books are telling you, let alone get a good understanding of the things you do take in.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I know you need both. But experience seems overrated and not nearly as comprehensive. If experience was so valuable why do some professions replace experienced workers with fresh graduates?

[–]jet199Instigatrix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

See you are just proving my point.

You know nothing about the war the world works.

They do it because experienced workers have built up years of party rises and benefits so cost much more. It's about cutting costs and hoping for the best. Then you have the issue that experienced workers will have the confidence to speak up when they see something wrong which bosses didn't like. There are multiple huge scandals which have happened after companies have made such a move.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If I don’t understand they way the world works, can we agree that you do not understand economics?

If the experience of the experienced person was more valuable than the low salary of a noob they would not fire the experienced person to cut costs, as his experience would justify a higher salary.

It seems you are saying confidence and supervisation of others is what make experienced people valuable to an organization, otherwise any noob with these skills could replace an experienced person.