I think the author is writing under the assumption that there are diminishing returns as one gets better at a skill, when really the opposite is true. The number of topics you can absorb per unit term obviously increases with your pre-existing competency with the skill.
This is because you can leverage your existing knowledge of the subject by comparing what you already know with what you're trying to learn.
There is no "sweet spot" for learning a new skill. Most skills have a learning curve where competency starts low.
The author is trying to make a generalization based off his perceived sales skill but is probably suffering from a Dunning-Kruger effect. That, or software engineering already taught him a great deal of the requisite jargon required for his particular brand of sales. If the author were to instead move into say, spectrometer sales he would most likely find that his "30% or 40% prospects" would really be 0%.
This is because you can leverage your existing knowledge of the subject by comparing what you already know with what you're trying to learn.
There is no "sweet spot" for learning a new skill. Most skills have a learning curve where competency starts low.
The author is trying to make a generalization based off his perceived sales skill but is probably suffering from a Dunning-Kruger effect. That, or software engineering already taught him a great deal of the requisite jargon required for his particular brand of sales. If the author were to instead move into say, spectrometer sales he would most likely find that his "30% or 40% prospects" would really be 0%.
Not a very well-informed article.