To the extent that specific knowledge is taught, it's on the job. It's through apprenticeships, and that's why the best business is the best careers are the apprenticeship careers because those were things of society still has not figured out how to train and automate. Yet the classic line here is that Warren Buffett went to Benjamin Graham when he got out of school, and Benjamin Graham is the author. The intelligent investor is sort of modernized or created. Value investing is a discipline, and Warren Buffett went to Benjamin Graham and offered to work for him for free. And Graham said, Actually, your overpriced free is over. Price and Graham was absolutely right that when it comes to a very valuable apprenticeship, like the type that Graham was going to give Buffett, Buffett should have been paying him a lot of money. And that right there tells you that those air skills worth knowing specific knowledge also tends to be technical and creative. So on the bleeding edge of technology on the bleeding edge of art on the bleeding edge of communication even today,

for example, there are probably mean lords out there on the Internet who can create incredible names that will spread the idea to millions of people or are very persuasive. Like, for example, Scott Adams of the example. This he's essentially becoming one of the most credible people in the world by making accurate predictions through persuasive arguments and videos. And that is specific knowledge that he has built up over the years because he got obsessed with hypnosis when he was young, he learned how to communicate through cartooning. He embraced periscope release, so he's been practicing lots of conversation. He's read all the books on the topic he's employed in his everyday life. If you look at his girlfriend, she's like this beautiful young Instagram model that is example of someone who has built up a specific knowledge over the course of his career. It's highly creative. It has elements of being technical in it, and it's something that is never gonna be automated.

No one's gonna take that away from him because he's also accountable under one brand, A. Scott Adams, and he's operating with the leverage of media with periscope and drawing Dilbert cartoons and writing books. He has massive leverage on top of that brand, and he can build wealth out of it if he wanted to build additional wealth beyond what he already has. Should we be calling it unique knowledge or two specific knowledge somehow make more sense for it? You know, I came up with this framework when I was really young, and we're talking decades and decades is not probably over 30 years old, and so at the time, to specific knowledge, stuck with me. So that is how I think about it. The reason I didn't try and change it is because every other term that I found for it was overloaded in a different way. At least specific knowledge isn't that used.

I can kind of rebrand it. The probably unique knowledge is yeah, maybe it's unique, but if I learn it from somebody else is no longer unique, then we both know it, so it's not so much that is unique. It's that it is highly specific to the situation. It's specific to the individual. It's specific to the problem, and it can only be built as part of a larger obsession, interest and time spent in that domain. They can't just be read straight out of a single book, nor could be taught in a single course, nor can be programmed into a single algorithm. Speaking of Ah, Scott Adams,

he's gotta block post on how to build your career by getting in, say, the top 25 percentile at three or more things. And by doing that, you become the only person in the world who can do those three things in the 25th percentile. So instead of trying to be the best at one thing, you just try to be very, very good at three or more things. Is that a way of building specific knowledge? I actually think the best way is just a follow your own obsession and someone in the back of your mind. You can realize that they actually this obsession, like I'll keep an eye out for the commercial aspects of it. But I think if you go around trying to build it a little too deliberately, if you become too goal oriented on the money, then you won't pick the right thing. You won't actually pick the thing that you love to do,

so you won't go deep enough into it. Scott Adams Observation is a good one. It's predicated on statistics. Let's say there's 10,000 areas that are valuable to the human race today in terms of knowledge teau have, and the number one in those 10,000 slots is taken right. Someone else is likely to be the number one each of those 10,000 unless you happen to be one of the 10,000 most obsessed people in the world that a given think. But when you start going the combinatorics of combining well number 3007 or 28 with top notch sales skills and really good writing skills and so understands accounting and finance really well when the need for the intersection arrives, you've expanded now from 10,000 through combinatorics to millions or tens of millions, so it just becomes much less competitive. Also, there's diminishing returns, so it's much easier to be top 75 percentile at three or four things. That is, to be literally the number one at something. I think it's a very pragmatic approach, but I think it's important that one not start assembling things to deliberately because you do want to pick things where you are a natural.

Everyone is a natural. It's something we're all familiar with. That phrase unnatural or this person's that a natural at meeting men are aware expressions and natural socialite. This person's a natural program that this person is a natural reader. So whatever you are a natural at, you want to double down on that. And then there are probably multiple things your natural, because personalities and humans are very complex. So we want to be able to take the things that you are a natural act and combine them so that you automatically just assure interest and enjoyment end up Top 25 or top 10 or top 5% at a number of things.