spacer
Expert Mind?
Posted by Joseph Riggio on Thursday, August 03, 2006The idea of the “EXPERT” - someone who is “heads and shoulders” above others in a particular domain is something that has facinated me for quite sometime ... “Who are these “experts?” ... “What makes someone an “expert?” ... “How does one become an “expert?” Now I have some answers ...
Hello all,
I picked up a copy over the weekend of this months “Scientific American” magazine (August 2006) - largely because of the title story, “Secrets of the EXPERT MIND” - Become Good At Anything (emphasis theirs). I thought, “WOW!” ... “Now I’m gonna find out everything I’ve always wanted to know about experts ... a topic that has fascinated me forever!” Well, I really didn’t think that but I did think that it would be a totally fascinating read ... and it was.
The basic examination is the essence of the study of “experts” - chess players/masters, especially Grand Masters. This has been the domain of the study of experts for well over 100 years now. In fact they use a terms in the article I love, “The Drosophila of Cognitive Science” - referring to the favorite subject of genetics study, the common fruit fly, because they so totally suit that work, largely due to the ability to induce these changes and their fast life cycle - i.e.: birth to reproduction. As a cognitive scientist myself, (my doctoral work was completed on the nature of “transpersonal decision-making in human systems” - a neurolinguistic modeling approach; I’d say that qualifies me at least at the periphery of being a cognitive scientist, eh?), I loved the approach the article took and where it went within the topic.
Essentially, there’s not much new to folks who have studied (human) “experts” and/or “expertise.” The general rule is simple - experts do indeed do things extraordinarily better than their colleagues within the area of their expertise - not just a little better, but a whole lot better. Almost always this has to do with their ability to perceive the situation and make decisions leading to superior performance in that area where they have expertise. However - and this is important - this expertise seldom if ever crosses over to other areas of their lives. In other words an “expert” in chess, a Grand Master, does not necessarily make better decisions in any other area of their life, or have an ability to “think” better or more strategically than anyone else outside of their chess play.
What is interesting though are two subtle points:
The first is that expertise is about pattern recognition ... no surprises here ... however what’s interesting is that their ability to recognize pattern is typically confined to the first few seconds of thought, not to long and arduous consideration. What experts do is build up a “vocabulary” of pattern in their area of expertise over many years (the article suggests a minimum of ten) that is instantly available to them in total when they are perceiving a situation contained within the domain of their expertise - a few seconds to perceive what would take someone skilled much, much more time and would be totally unavailable to the novice.
The second is that expertise is largely a learned phenomena, not a genetic phenomena. That those individuals who become experts have the advantage of beginning early and continuing over long periods of time developing their knowledge and skills. It’s only beyond this learning process that any natural (i.e.: genetically based) talent even has the chance to show up. Again, no surprise here either, however what is interesting are the statistics of age and success that lead to the motivation for young children to do what it takes to become experts over time.
There’s another point embedded in the article as well that I found especially intriguing - a comparison between those who could be considered experts and those who are not:
“Without a demonstrably immense superiority in skill over the novice, there can be no true experts, only laypeople with imposing credentials. Such, alas, are all too common. Rigorous studies in the past two decades have shown that professional stock pickers invest no more successfully than amateurs, that noted connoisseurs distinguish wines hardly better than yokels, and that highly credentialed psychiatric therapists help patients no more than colleagues with less advanced degrees. And even when expertise undoubtedly exists - as in, say, teaching or business management - it is often hared to measure let alone explain.” - Scientific American, August 2006, pp.: 66
What’s interesting there to me is the embedded claim that there are no experts in stock analysis, wine or psychiatry - while it’s evident (at least to the author) that experts in teaching and business management exist. While I can’t speak to the lack of expertise suggested I can definitely speak to the expertise in business management as I spent a good five years of my life studying and working with folks who could be called “business management experts” in doing my doctoral research and writing. I have to agree that expertise definitely exists in this domain - there are those who consistently perform “heads and shoulders” above their colleagues in this domain.
I don’t however agree with the idea that it is so difficult to study business management expertise, it’s just picking the right thing to study. The example I’ll offer is in comparison to studying chess masters. No one would dream about studying the “behavior” of chess experts in regards to them being experts - e.g.: Bobby Fishers extreme bad behavior at tournaments or reclusiveness. The way they pick or move pieces physically is not the topic of “expert study” when it comes to chess, instead it’s the way they think and make decisions that makes all the difference. And, what consistently rises above all other considerations is how they have a wider and more penetrating scope of consideration during play - due to their ability to perceive larger chunks of information. Because they are considering larger chunks of information they are literally considering less information at a cognitive level than a novice must. The article in Scientific American does a great job explaining this - so I’ll leave the specifics to them.
Yet when studying business, what virtually everyone has studied is the behavior of the management ... and usually after the fact, e.g.: “What we/I did ...” or “What happened was ...” However, the information is in the moment not after the fact, and it’s not in the behavior but in the decision-making process that leads to behavior. When you extract the decision-making process and what’s contained within it you can re-create elements of expertise that lead to behavior. While the behavior is the manifest form of expertise, i.e.: what experts “do,” it’s what behind that behavior that generates it that really counts ... but more about that some other time, eh - I’ve already gone on long enough for one days reading.
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ
PS - We’ve done two things to make it easier for you to get BlogNostra ... 1.) set-up the RSS feed for BlogNostra - the RSS feed link to is now working just right, so use it to create an automatic download to your newreader and each time I post you’ll get a copy of BlogNostra delivered directly to you, and 2.) we’ve also set up my new weekly newsletter Authentically Living which will feature some articles from BlogNostra as well as my comments on these postings beyond the postings themselves - you can sign-up for Authentically Living on any page of my website. You’ll find the sign-up box in the top right-hand corner of the page - it’s free, we keep your information extremely private and you can opt-out anytime you like - however in the you’ll get the best of BlogNostra delivered directly to you for your review at your convenience and leisure, articles that I’ll only be posting to Authentically Living and even some special audio podcasts we have in store just for subscribers ... so go ahead join me in these exciting times and sign-up for an RSS feed from BlogNostra and your subscription to Authentically Living now!
(4) Comments • (2) Trackbacks • Permalink
As a sales person for Mercedes-Benz in New York City, for 11 years, I came in contact with many, many people who were considered experts in their field. Fashion designers, physicians of various specializations, entertainers, publishers, to categorize a few. It never ceased to amaze me how narrow a focus their expertise left them with. I never doubted their ability to make accurate lightnening quick decisions within their field. I was, however, frequently amazed at the lack of clarity, and functionality they posessed when placed outside of their realm.
As a child of 12, I became immensely interested in baking, and cooking. I spent hours at at time “perfecting” a particular cake, or bread, or pastry. Often I would discard, or at least discount the value of a creation, and begin the attempt again only minutes after my “failure” was sampled. Often my tasters would question what I thought was wrong, and I would just know that I could do better.
At some point I set as a goal; to be able to taste something, and then be able to reproduce it myself. It took years, to get close to this, and although I am pretty good with certain foods, I can’t say I mastered it.
After working 15 years in restaurant kitchens I did gain enough skill so that when I was at my peak, I could do some amazing things, and some amazing amount of multi-tasking within the chaotic environment of a busy professional kitchen.
I had an experience at a friend’s Christmas party a few years ago. I knew she had put a beautiful tenderloin of beef in the oven at some point before I had arrived, and she was concerned about when to take it out, and have it be med. rare in the center, and varying degrees of doneness in either direction, and didn’t have a meat thermometer.
Amidst noise and conversation, I suddenly became aware of an olfactory signal, that triggered “The roast has cooked long enough”
I walked into the kitchen and announced, “Your tenderloin has to come out of the oven now!”
She complied, and when it was cut into, it was exactly the desired doneness.
After years of sensory data, and experience, I had developed ways of sorting information that served exquisitely in the food preparation milieu.
Now, I am privy to the expertise of Joseph Riggio. When I observe him do what he does, it is clear he is drawing from years of experience, and reflection on the micro-movements of change that take place within his client. Seeming to “know” what is going to be elicited before it occurs.
There is the knowing what to do, when to do it, and then there is the knowing how I know what to do and when to do it, that is often out of awareness of the expert because it is dyed deep into the fabric of the doer, and out of awareness. For me, and the roast, it was the first time I was aware that I made decisions using my nose, but when I reflected, and started to track for it, it was like..yeah, of course, I’ve done this, because of that a thousand times.
Now, I am devoting most of my time to mastering the Mythogenic Process Model, I hope I live long enough to become an expert.
Mark Schwimmer
Mark,
Interesting story ... thanks.
We’ve spoken about cooking before and I am a “student” of the art, but by no means a master. I’m probably more like a “talented amateur.” Yet, that doesn’t in any way inhibit me from pursuing the form with gusto! I love to cook and enjoy the results immensely - especially when I get to share these results with others.
However, what this brings up for me is the idea that is presented in the article of expertise being purely a function of learning, while my personal and professional experience both indicate that there is function of innate talent. I know that some things come more “naturally” to me than others, and I’ve met folks who are more “naturally” gifted than others I’ve worked with as well.
I think we are built differently in terms of our sensory and cognitive abilities in the same way we are built differently physically - some taller, some shorter ... some thicker, some thinner ... and so on. I think you may have been drawn to learning how to cook and to develop a level of expertise by these natural proclivities - yet I do agree with the article in saying that all the talent in the world won’t produce expertise without diligent practice.
My personal opinion, not corroborated by any science other than common sense, is that expertise is a product and a consequence of passion. Of being strongly emotionally engaged and focused on a particular interest! I have yet to meet a person ablaze with passion with some thing, who did not develop an expertise in it, far beyond and above what was initially believed to be possible… to say the least… and often very much exceeding the average as well! It is interesting that it is found that there is no expertise in winery, therapy or investing. And I think this is because the researchers operated on the premise that expertise is a function of academic study or of years of experience! Not so, the true criterion is passion and commitment (for me). That is why, then my great aunt, a mere graduate of a Girls Lyceum, great cook, and embroiderer, happens to be consistently brilliant in consoling hearts and healing emotions, than any PhD psychiatrist I know!
Agnes Mariakaki
Look at this amateur porn
