What Qualities Do Experts Have? by Warren Bull
Image by Sasikan Ulevik on Upsplash
I’ve heard a lots of questions
recently along the lines of: “If I read articles about something from time to
time, will that make me an expert?” Or: “Most people in the world think X but Y
says something else it true, why don’t people wise up and realize that Y has
the real dope.”
Experts are discounted on one hand
(I remember when a British debater described an expert as a drip under pressure) and accorded unquestioned knowledge in all
areas on the other.
Michael J. Mauboussin of Legg Mason
Capital Management wrote recently about the Characteristics of Experts:
“Given that experts exist in diverse
domains, psychologists
wondered whether they have much in common. The answer: a resounding Yes.
Research on expert performance reveals seven robust and universal
characteristics:
wondered whether they have much in common. The answer: a resounding Yes.
Research on expert performance reveals seven robust and universal
characteristics:
1. Experts excel in their own domains, but
not outside their domain. Expertise
is domain specific.
is domain specific.
2. Experts perceive patterns in their
domain.
3. Experts solve problems much faster than
novices. Lightning chess, where
players only have a few seconds to decide a move, illustrates this point well.
players only have a few seconds to decide a move, illustrates this point well.
4. Experts have superior short and
long-term memory. When tested, experts appear
to have recall capacity that exceeds the limits of short-term memory. [Editorial note: This applies within their specialty, but may not apply generally. G.K. Chesterton on his way to a speech would often phone his home from the railroad station to ask where he was supposed to be heading.]
to have recall capacity that exceeds the limits of short-term memory. [Editorial note: This applies within their specialty, but may not apply generally. G.K. Chesterton on his way to a speech would often phone his home from the railroad station to ask where he was supposed to be heading.]
5. Experts represent problems at a deeper
level than novices…experts sort by
principle-based categories, while novices sort more literally, reflecting the
problem’s surface features.
principle-based categories, while novices sort more literally, reflecting the
problem’s surface features.
6. Experts spend a lot of time solving
problems qualitatively.
7. Experts have a strong sense of their
own fallibility. Experts tend to be more
aware of their errors, why they fail, and when they need to check their answers.”
aware of their errors, why they fail, and when they need to check their answers.”
I agree that the process an expert
engages in is qualitatively different that what less experienced
problem-solvers do. Experts identify and consider underlying concepts; an issue
can be solved superficially, but the problem underneath the particular
situation will generate other issues until the basic problem is identified and
solved. In medicine treatment of symptoms may lessen the signs but leave the
illness still active.
And experts can recognize
complicated situations with a speed and accuracy that confounds less skillful
observers. Agents and editors can assess writing skills within a paragraph or
two. Musical theater directors can tell how well a singer can perform within a
measure or two of listening.
What I find particularly interesting and telling is that
experts are aware of the limits of their expertise. It seems to me that an
essential part of expertise is the ability to say, “I don’t know. You need to
ask someone who does.” I am working currently with a physical therapist who
advised me that I was not making the progress expected and I needed to consult
my physician. She was right. I got the needed medical help and now I’m back
working with her again.
How do you identify someone as an
expert?
At one point in my life, I worked at the University of Chicago library. They tried to hire experts in their fields, often the people who have written "the" textbook.
ReplyDeleteWe noticed an interesting pattern to them. Most were male (perhaps a product of the times--it was years ago,) were totally absorbed by their subject, had no understanding that other people might be ahead of them in requesting library service, and (most interesting) usually lived with their mothers, who had moved to Chicago with them for the position on the faculty. They were punctual with their classes and office hours, but not particularly good teachers. That wasn't considered a problem. It was the student's responsibility to learn.
I now realize that most of them were exhibiting many features of autism, particularly Aspergers syndrome.
My husband is a physicist and my go-to person for natural phenomena (lava flow, rainbows, vectors, waves, how sound travels in fog, stars) and the chemistry of poisons. When we found a statue of Lord Kelvin in a Belfast park, he explained, at great length, the concept of absolute zero. He was the go-to neighborhood tutor for AP Physics and a strict taskmaster on the kids' science projects, our kitchen counters filled with racks of test tubes and lines of beakers. We also had a periodic chart on the refrigerator.
ReplyDeletePeople ask me what we talk about over dinner every evening: politics, professional soccer, and our dogs.
A very interesting blog, Warren. It makes me realize I'm not an expert at anything. Yes there are a lot of things I can do and they seem okay, but I'm certainly not an expert.
ReplyDeleteKM. Oh, yes. When I started to college computers were new. Many students would get fascinated with the new machines, spend hours writing little programs and ignore everything else. They flunked out.
ReplyDeleteMargaret, Sounds like your husband can leave his work behind and actually chat socially.
ReplyDeleteGloria,
ReplyDeleteCongratulations!