The Value Way

“The Value Way” is the phrase Kyle attaches, in his notes on The Expertise Economy, to that book’s central argument: the move away from valuing pedigree, logos, time spent learning, and test-taking ability, and toward “the language of skills.” Its sharpest formulation is the book’s thought experiment — “If you could have a Harvard education OR a Harvard degree, but not both, which would you choose?” — which Kyle reads as exposing how little formal credentials track actual capability, a thread he connects to The Death of Expertise.

In practice the concept attaches to two moves in the book: making everyday learning count (“you want learning to count for something towards your goals,” via personalized learning records and profiles), and cutting through Content Overload so that the scarce hours left for learning are spent on what builds real skill. It is closely linked to the book’s Skills Quotient framing — skills, not pedigree, as “the currency of the future.”

Where this appears

• The Expertise Economy — Kyle’s label for the book’s thesis that skills (not pedigrees or logos) are the currency of the future, and that learning should “count for something” toward one’s goals.

From Roam

• Related
  • The Value Way of Thinking
• Notes
  • As a species, humans prefer power to truth. We spend far more time and effort on trying to control the world than on trying to understand it – and even when we try to understand it, we usually do so in the hope that understanding the world will make it easier to control it.
  • It is the responsibility of all of us to invest time and effort in uncovering our biases and in verifying our sources of information.
  • The second rule of thumb is that if some issue seems exceptionally important to you, make the effort to read the relevant scientific literature. And by scientific literature I mean peer-reviewed articles, books published by well-known academic publishers, and the writings of professors from reputable institutions. Science obviously has its limitations, and it has got many things wrong in the past. Nevertheless, the scientific community has been our most reliable source of knowledge for centuries. If you think that the scientific community is wrong about something, that’s certainly possible, but at least know the scientific theories you are rejecting, and provide some empirical evidence to support your claim.
  • https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/aug/05/yuval-noah-harari-extract-fake-news-sapiens-homo-deus