5 ms·

Most people assume the term "expert" applies to someone who knows [pretty much] everything there is to know about a given subject. I've learned that "expert" r

Most people assume the term "expert" applies to someone who knows [pretty much] everything there is to know about a given subject. I've learned that "expert" really applies to someone who knows more about the subject than anyone else involved or available...and that knowledge may very well be next to nothing. I'd been coming to this conclusion, which finally sunk in when my wife, working at a top consulting company, was told "If you can spell 'Cognos' you're an expert" (with implication said "expert" would be on the next plane and billed out at several hundred dollars an hour). "Impostor Syndrome" kicks in when you do know more about the subject than anyone else involved or available, and you know that knowledge is next to nothing.

TelmoMenezes 13y ago
Ok, so now we need a new word for people that actually know stuff.
- mistercow 13y ago
  That wouldn't help, I think. The problem is that the more you know, the less you feel like you know. A high school student with an A in his honor's physics class probably feels like he knows more of what there is to know about physics than Michio Kaku feels like he knows.
  - 1123581321 13y ago
    More interactions between novices, intermediates and experts make it possible to identify experts. The physics student can only believe in their false expertise until "shown up" by someone who knows and/or does physics for a living; likewise those people need to interact with students to realize that they do know something. It is easiest if a competent guild, association or governing body can set a permission-to-play standard to govern alongside a peer-review system for publishing and a merit-based system or awards for discoveries -- and all in the field should be encouraged to measure themselves against these systems and be rejected or accepted to learn more about themselves and their field.
    - mistercow 13y ago
      >More interactions between novices, intermediates and experts make it possible to identify experts. Is there evidence for this? It seems unlikely to me. My experience with non-experts with a little knowledge (including myself) is that they massively discount the difference between what they know and what the experts they encounter know. They know that they know less, but they don't have any foundation to understand how much less.
      - 1123581321 13y ago
        I don't know if there are any studies. A low-skill/low-knowledge person can still discern the differences between skills in their region of expertise. So, in the presence of a grandmaster, they might make fools of themselves while the merely accomplished take the opportunity to learn something. However, in discussions with an accomplished person, a novice will more easily see their inadequacies. Thus the ability to teach is the ability to communicate expertise further down the ladder than others, and the ability to rapidly learn is the ability to reach further up the ladder and so waste less time on the intermediate steps. People are usually better at learning from certain mediums and types of people as well. Along these lines, one goal of an expert teaching a novice is to turn a novice into an effective autodidact. An effective autodidact a) knows they are ignorant, b) knows that the ladder of expertise exists, c) knows how to climb the ladder. It is possible to communicate to a novice signposts that will help them understand their progression despite their not having experienced it yet. Again, these extend further depending on the ability of the novice and the expert, but for anyone they will extend further than the knowledge the novice can actually identify as not being known yet. Even very dull people can grasp something as simple as "Bob really understands this job. Follow his advice, even if it doesn't make sense to you yet. It'll be hard at first but stick with it and you'll know twice as much in a month." Again, I'm not aware of any studies so am happy for you to directly disagree, but I hope this reminds you of interactions you've observed as I do believe these behaviors are common.
  - TelmoMenezes 13y ago
    True. When you know very little there's a lot of stuff that you don't even know that you know. But I was replying to comment that suggests a type of knowledge relativism that many times comes attached with words like "ninja" and "rockstar" and that makes my skin crawl. We live in an age of too much networking, not enough deep thought and deliberate practice. It is symptomatic that "you can be an expert just by faking it" philosophies start to pop up. I suspect this is not good in the long term. I'd bet this is how the Roman empire collapsed :)
mcv 13y ago
Almost every recruiter I talk to says they need an expert on some technology, and every time I says I'm not really an expert, and explain in minute detail everything I don't know about it. They're invariably impressed.
- rralian 13y ago
  In my experience recruiters are always impressed and push you forward. It takes very little of their time to put someone forward (relative to your time and the company's time), and if you happen to impress, they get their commission. If they don't put you forward, it's guaranteed they don't get that additional chance. Every time I've come to the conclusion a certain opportunity wasn't right for me, they've always argued that I should try for it anyway. We (talking developers here) are their product and we are a scarce resource. They're not going to turn anyone away.
  - mcv 13y ago
    Yeah, I always need to remind myself that recruiters are irrelevant. It's the client that matters, and the recruiter is just in the way. I wish they weren't part of the process, but I'm not sure how to get around them.
- ryangensel 13y ago
  I think this is great advice. Knowing what you don't know about something is the first step in the journey toward learning more about the topic. The ability to apply the knowledge you do have, and efficiently learn what it takes to appropriately complete a task is often more valuable than the academic exercise of research without application. I've found that during that time however, there is hesitation which makes people feel less confident, not only in the task at hand, but in their career in general, as some feel their current work and position is the sum of their accomplishments. I try to resist the feelings of self-doubt by getting energized about learning something new and having a supportive team around me that has witnessed me overcome similar challenges to achieve success. However, some learning and application is done in a bubble, isolated from others' support either by working independently, not having a support system, or failing to sincerely communicate the existential crisis that one feels. The catch 22 seems that many people that are feeling like an imposture further isolate themselves as they think that communication about their feelings are an insincere attempt at gaining flattery from their support network, potentially perpetuating their feelings of inadequacy. Creative professionals often go through periods of self-doubt, but it's the mature understanding that it's common and occasionally difficult to articulate, that prepares one to overcome those feelings to accomplish the feat.
mistercow 13y ago
>"Impostor Syndrome" kicks in when you do know more about the subject than anyone else involved or available, and you know that knowledge is next to nothing. I think that is a pretty good analysis. I would add that there are two other components, which are the Dunning-Kruger effect, and a variation of the typical mind fallacy. Impostor syndrome happens when you: 1. Are knowledgeable enough about a subject that you understand how little you know, compared to how much there is to know, 2. Are treated as an expert because of this knowledge, and 3. Assume that other people treated as experts would have a similar experience, and would only act confident if they really did know a large proportion of what there was to know. #3 is of course incorrect; impostor syndrome becomes worse as your knowledge gets deeper and more specialized. Instead of seeing your knowledge meter fill up, you see the meter expand as you realize how much more there is to know. And you see new, empty meters popping up next to it, which you feel should be at least partially full to consider yourself an expert. These meters reveal themselves because you have the learned basis to understand that the field they represent even exists. So when you mostly encounter experts who project confidence, you assume that it is because their knowledge meters are full. In reality, it is most commonly because they really have very little knowledge, and so to them the meter seems almost full. For the rest of them who are actually knowledgeable, it is because they have learned to project confidence with practice, and/or learned to keep things in perspective. And of course most experts aren't very knowledgeable - once you think about it, it would be shocking for the world to look any other way. But if you aren't an expert in their specific field, they will still know more than you do. And since your knowledge meter for that field is short, you will feel like the knowledge they demonstrate is close to filling it up. Finally, it doesn't help that most of the experts we "encounter" are either in fiction, or are being presented in formats where any lack of confidence would be completely obscured. You can account for that rationally all you like, but your monkey brain is still going to integrate it into your emotional concept of an expert.
j45 13y ago
The best definition of an expert I've read is someone who knows more and more about less and less. :)
- Coincoin 13y ago
  You left out the best part: ... until he knows everything about absolutely nothing.
  - j45 13y ago
    Haha... I forgot about that! Makes it even better. "Knowing is delusion" - Zen Phrase

TelmoMenezes 13y ago

Ok, so now we need a new word for people that actually know stuff.

mistercow 13y ago
That wouldn't help, I think. The problem is that the more you know, the less you feel like you know. A high school student with an A in his honor's physics class probably feels like he knows more of what there is to know about physics than Michio Kaku feels like he knows.
- 1123581321 13y ago
  More interactions between novices, intermediates and experts make it possible to identify experts. The physics student can only believe in their false expertise until "shown up" by someone who knows and/or does physics for a living; likewise those people need to interact with students to realize that they do know something. It is easiest if a competent guild, association or governing body can set a permission-to-play standard to govern alongside a peer-review system for publishing and a merit-based system or awards for discoveries -- and all in the field should be encouraged to measure themselves against these systems and be rejected or accepted to learn more about themselves and their field.
  - mistercow 13y ago
    >More interactions between novices, intermediates and experts make it possible to identify experts. Is there evidence for this? It seems unlikely to me. My experience with non-experts with a little knowledge (including myself) is that they massively discount the difference between what they know and what the experts they encounter know. They know that they know less, but they don't have any foundation to understand how much less.
    - 1123581321 13y ago
      I don't know if there are any studies. A low-skill/low-knowledge person can still discern the differences between skills in their region of expertise. So, in the presence of a grandmaster, they might make fools of themselves while the merely accomplished take the opportunity to learn something. However, in discussions with an accomplished person, a novice will more easily see their inadequacies. Thus the ability to teach is the ability to communicate expertise further down the ladder than others, and the ability to rapidly learn is the ability to reach further up the ladder and so waste less time on the intermediate steps. People are usually better at learning from certain mediums and types of people as well. Along these lines, one goal of an expert teaching a novice is to turn a novice into an effective autodidact. An effective autodidact a) knows they are ignorant, b) knows that the ladder of expertise exists, c) knows how to climb the ladder. It is possible to communicate to a novice signposts that will help them understand their progression despite their not having experienced it yet. Again, these extend further depending on the ability of the novice and the expert, but for anyone they will extend further than the knowledge the novice can actually identify as not being known yet. Even very dull people can grasp something as simple as "Bob really understands this job. Follow his advice, even if it doesn't make sense to you yet. It'll be hard at first but stick with it and you'll know twice as much in a month." Again, I'm not aware of any studies so am happy for you to directly disagree, but I hope this reminds you of interactions you've observed as I do believe these behaviors are common.
- TelmoMenezes 13y ago
  True. When you know very little there's a lot of stuff that you don't even know that you know. But I was replying to comment that suggests a type of knowledge relativism that many times comes attached with words like "ninja" and "rockstar" and that makes my skin crawl. We live in an age of too much networking, not enough deep thought and deliberate practice. It is symptomatic that "you can be an expert just by faking it" philosophies start to pop up. I suspect this is not good in the long term. I'd bet this is how the Roman empire collapsed :)

mcv 13y ago

Almost every recruiter I talk to says they need an expert on some technology, and every time I says I'm not really an expert, and explain in minute detail everything I don't know about it. They're invariably impressed.

rralian 13y ago
In my experience recruiters are always impressed and push you forward. It takes very little of their time to put someone forward (relative to your time and the company's time), and if you happen to impress, they get their commission. If they don't put you forward, it's guaranteed they don't get that additional chance. Every time I've come to the conclusion a certain opportunity wasn't right for me, they've always argued that I should try for it anyway. We (talking developers here) are their product and we are a scarce resource. They're not going to turn anyone away.
- mcv 13y ago
  Yeah, I always need to remind myself that recruiters are irrelevant. It's the client that matters, and the recruiter is just in the way. I wish they weren't part of the process, but I'm not sure how to get around them.
ryangensel 13y ago
I think this is great advice. Knowing what you don't know about something is the first step in the journey toward learning more about the topic. The ability to apply the knowledge you do have, and efficiently learn what it takes to appropriately complete a task is often more valuable than the academic exercise of research without application. I've found that during that time however, there is hesitation which makes people feel less confident, not only in the task at hand, but in their career in general, as some feel their current work and position is the sum of their accomplishments. I try to resist the feelings of self-doubt by getting energized about learning something new and having a supportive team around me that has witnessed me overcome similar challenges to achieve success. However, some learning and application is done in a bubble, isolated from others' support either by working independently, not having a support system, or failing to sincerely communicate the existential crisis that one feels. The catch 22 seems that many people that are feeling like an imposture further isolate themselves as they think that communication about their feelings are an insincere attempt at gaining flattery from their support network, potentially perpetuating their feelings of inadequacy. Creative professionals often go through periods of self-doubt, but it's the mature understanding that it's common and occasionally difficult to articulate, that prepares one to overcome those feelings to accomplish the feat.

mistercow 13y ago

>"Impostor Syndrome" kicks in when you do know more about the subject than anyone else involved or available, and you know that knowledge is next to nothing. I think that is a pretty good analysis. I would add that there are two other components, which are the Dunning-Kruger effect, and a variation of the typical mind fallacy. Impostor syndrome happens when you: 1. Are knowledgeable enough about a subject that you understand how little you know, compared to how much there is to know, 2. Are treated as an expert because of this knowledge, and 3. Assume that other people treated as experts would have a similar experience, and would only act confident if they really did know a large proportion of what there was to know. #3 is of course incorrect; impostor syndrome becomes worse as your knowledge gets deeper and more specialized. Instead of seeing your knowledge meter fill up, you see the meter expand as you realize how much more there is to know. And you see new, empty meters popping up next to it, which you feel should be at least partially full to consider yourself an expert. These meters reveal themselves because you have the learned basis to understand that the field they represent even exists. So when you mostly encounter experts who project confidence, you assume that it is because their knowledge meters are full. In reality, it is most commonly because they really have very little knowledge, and so to them the meter seems almost full. For the rest of them who are actually knowledgeable, it is because they have learned to project confidence with practice, and/or learned to keep things in perspective. And of course most experts aren't very knowledgeable - once you think about it, it would be shocking for the world to look any other way. But if you aren't an expert in their specific field, they will still know more than you do. And since your knowledge meter for that field is short, you will feel like the knowledge they demonstrate is close to filling it up. Finally, it doesn't help that most of the experts we "encounter" are either in fiction, or are being presented in formats where any lack of confidence would be completely obscured. You can account for that rationally all you like, but your monkey brain is still going to integrate it into your emotional concept of an expert.

j45 13y ago

The best definition of an expert I've read is someone who knows more and more about less and less. :)

Coincoin 13y ago
You left out the best part: ... until he knows everything about absolutely nothing.
- j45 13y ago
  Haha... I forgot about that! Makes it even better. "Knowing is delusion" - Zen Phrase