Unique way to frame figuring out the world: view the key question in every discipline as "is there a social skill curve"?
Some people think there is a social skill curve everywhere, but that's not true. Some people behave as if the skill curve isn't real anywhere, but that's obviously not true.
For example in language proficiency, there is a social skill curve. (Trying to pick the maximally clear-cut example to make the point.) People who spend more time studying (or just speaking) a language genuinely get better; the skill is real, and people will generally climb it similarly. It also has the property of being obvious from the outside, which is why it's uncontroversial.
Conversely in philosophy, there is no social skill curve. That doesn't mean there isn't talent (there is) and no way to get better (there might not be, but that's not the point), it just means that it doesn't track social roles. You don't improve at philosophy by studying philosophy in an objective way. People who have spent their whole live studying philosophy can write academic papers that are of inferior argument quality to shower thoughts of an 18yo.
More obvious example is Roulette strategy -- not meaning actual roulette strategy that includes properties of the mechanical wheel, but strategy that assumes the output is random. There is no such thing (at least not as far as EV is concerned), but there have absolutely been people who thought there was such a thing.
Hence the framing as, find the answer to this question in every field. It doesn't tell you everything about the world, but it's a really important component, and one that's under-discussed because often claiming there's no skill curve is against the vibe people want to signal.