My hypotheses is that experts are like fast food chains. They give a reliable, mediocre experience. Whereas non experts are like local restaurants - you get muc

My hypotheses is that experts are like fast food chains. They give a reliable, mediocre experience. Whereas non experts are like local restaurants - you get much higher variance. You could find something unique and special, or you could have food poisoning. When the risks are low and upside high, experts working in isolation can indeed lead to groupthink and suboptimal problem solving. You might get gradual, incremental, boring progress. Exactly the opposite of what’s wanted! However when the downside risk is high (ER doctor, hungry kids in the back seat, legal troubles, evolving your company’s cash cow product) you will prefer the boring, consistent experience over the one that dramatically upends everything. I know I wouldn’t want someone just winging it on shift when I go in for an ER visit. The problem to me is less about expert vs non expert, but rather how we navigate our own expertise. When do you recognize the downside risk as high, so you should double down on what’s known? Or when do you realize there’s tremendous upside if we lose our attachment to prior art on a topic?