The comparison was only to show how the transference of skill is inaccurate. First effort is placed in the acquisition of expanding current knowledge, then knowledge is used in practice, and through application of knowledge (AKA: effort) obtain additional missing gear. In this sense it is more a transference of knowledge than it is of skill since prior obtained gear does not always carry over to different jobs and require effort be put forth to once more gain missing gear to build a set for that job.
This quote:
Does not mean:I've never heard of a person just having the knowledge without putting forth an effort via practice, studying up on the job, or looking up how to get gear or what gear should be used for X situation
It is being misinterpreted by you I believe. It only states what knowledge is; something obtained via self educating, through practice and application, or familiarizing information to a given situation. I believe you emphasized the use of the word "gear" in what was said when that was not the focal point, knowledge and the inevitable effort on behalf of the person to obtain it was the focal point. Hence the "hand-in-hand" approach to reach the conclusion of what "skill" is. It is a conjunction of the two, but alone the person becomes either knowledgeable or determined.Or in my own words, putting in the effort to collect gear does not make neccesarily correlate positively with skill.
Either way, I think we've gone well off track from the original purpose of this topic and should return or accept that the same ideal is present on the definition. If not, then a separate topic should be made to further debate about it.

Reply With Quote