What makes someone an expert on something?

[Kalen Braley]

Thanks George,

Looks like I blew right over your follow-up post...and you make good points. I don't think someone necessarily has to work in a particular area to have interesting ideas as a hobbyist that perhaps no one has thought of before. 

In my line of work, we often employ a User Acceptance Testing phase where we deliberately try to provide as little guidance or info as possible, because we want people with fresh eyes and few pre-formed opinions to evaluate something.  And without fail they always find at least a few little things that just didn't occur to us.  Its a bit like having someone else look at a near complete draft of a paper that you've spent hours and hours writing and edited over and over again.

I don't know how well this translates to the golf course building business, but its certainly helpful in my experience...

[Ben Malach]

As with any epistemological subject I am drawn to Plato. That one cannot be an expert unless he questions his assumptions and finds the limits of his knowledge. It is this acknowledgement that one cannot know everything and ceding of points to ones that have more knowledge of the subject in a particular area that makes someone an expert. This is why I am wary of punditry and why I attempt to limit my comment to areas that I have a good knowledge in otherwise your just creating noise. The only way that an expert can engage in a subject that they are not familiar or have limited knowledge in is through inquisition. As dialog creates an environment for growth and learning.

[archie_struthers]

 


Being somewhere where no one knows your foibles!




p.s.    "you are never a prophet in your own land"

[Sven Nilsen]

The key word in the definition of "expert" is authoritative.


You can have authority (a) by mandate, or (b) by having earned the reputation of being (i) something more than competent with respect to performance and (ii) accurate or true with respect to the demonstration of knowledge.  Seems like we're talking about part (b) here.


The world would probably be a better place if we recognized that not everyone who has gained their authority via part (a) above is actually an expert.

[Steve Lang]

As with any epistemological subject I am drawn to Plato. That one cannot be an expert unless he questions his assumptions and finds the limits of his knowledge. It is this acknowledgement that one cannot know everything and ceding of points to ones that have more knowledge of the subject in a particular area that makes someone an expert. This is why I am wary of punditry and why I attempt to limit my comment to areas that I have a good knowledge in otherwise your just creating noise. The only way that an expert can engage in a subject that they are not familiar or have limited knowledge in is through inquisition. As dialog creates an environment for growth and learning.

Ben, you mean using the Socratic Method?

[Ben Malach]

Steve:


Sort of but Plato also states that there is only a limited amount of knowledge one can gain in life.  Therefore the only way to know what knowledge you have is to question it. This questioning and acknowledgement of your lack of wisdom is key for Plato. As in his view the individual can't gain anymore knowledge than you began life with. With life and dialog allowing the individual a deeper understanding of his circumstance.  The best place to read more about Plato's thoughts on the issue are in the dialogs: Republic and Theaetetus   

[Kalen Braley]

Steve:


Sort of but Plato also states that there is only a limited amount of knowledge one can gain in life.  Therefore the only way to know what knowledge you have is to question it. This questioning and acknowledgement of your lack of wisdom is key for Plato. As in his view the individual can't gain anymore knowledge than you began life with. With life and dialog allowing the individual a deeper understanding of his circumstance.  The best place to read more about Plato's thoughts on the issue are in the dialogs: Republic and Theaetetus   

Ben,


I was interested right up until this part.. "As in his view the individual can't gain anymore knowledge than you began life with"

[Ben Malach]

Kalen,


Yes that is the point is that Plato becomes not intuitive. But with further reading it becomes clear that Plato is discussing the fact that due to the human condition. We are limited in the knowledge that one can acquire for Plato this limit is set at birth and therefore you cannot acquire more knowledge than the limit of the knowledge set at birth.   

[Tom_Doak]

I did mention it earlier, the reading of the article about Gregg Popovich's expertise in wine and the Jeopardy champ who has obliterated all the records, mostly by approaching the game in a different manner. It's nothing more than that.


When I think about the GP article, I mostly come to the conclusion that the author likely knows little about the subject, so he or she (can't remember, sorry) is blown away by Pop's knowledge. But what the author really should be noticing is his expertise in coaching and people relations - the wine and dinners are merely the medium for conveying his true expertise.

George:


I happened to read this article today - the link was shared by another friend.  Here it is for those interested:


http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26524600/secret-team-dinners-built-spurs-dynasty

Yes, the author is blown away by Popovich's knowledge of wine, but apparently so are a lot of sommeliers across the country, and probably not just because he is an all-time-great tipper as well as a coach.

Does that make Pop an expert on the subject?  I think it depends on how you define the subject.  You don't have to know how to make great wine to appreciate the taste of it . . . but being an expert on wine is different than being an expert on how to make wine.  I'm not sure whether Robert Parker, who wrote the Doak Scale of wine, knows how to make wine.  He just knows how to drink it, and what people might like.

[For that matter, when I wrote the Doak Scale, I had not proven that I knew how to design a great golf course; I was still learning that part.]

Many here would qualify as experts on great golf courses.  They can tell you about every hole in the routing, what the greens are like, and how each hole adds to the experience.  But that doesn't mean they know anything about how to design a course, or how to build one.

On the flip side, there are people who are expert in building courses, who don't know or even care much about what makes a course great.

NOTE:  edited just to get text up to readable size, sorry!

[David Kelly]

Being a celebrity helps.  Then outlets like ESPN will write articles about you and how the millions of dollars you've thrown into your hobby has made you an expert.

[John Kirk]

Regarding the 10,000 hour threshold popularized by Malcolm Gladwell:

1.  I probably played over 10,000 hours of basketball as a young man.  I have expertise in playing basketball, but not in all aspects of game theory, fundamentals and coaching.  It's almost like a previous life now, but I had a good feel for how the game would unfold, and eventually, how to win games. 

2.  I've played golf for over 10,000 hours.  2,500 rounds at four hours per round.  Whether or not I am a golf expert is debatable.  I have a good feel for playing a golf course, which leads to insight on playing golf courses.  But a real golf expert has practiced for 10,000 hours.  Or in the case of our golf architects, has designed and built golf courses for over 10,000 hours.

3.  I've spent a lot of time studying popular music, learning the famous musicians and their songs.  As part of my study I found an extensive survey (over 250,000 people) that calculated people spend 10-15 hours per week throughout their lives listening to music.  Almost everybody has spent 10,000 hours listening to music.  I know the names and artists of a few thousand songs, maybe as many as ten thousand.  But there are well over a million songs out there.  The subject is humbling, almost everyone knows what they like, and usually it's not what you like.

I would think a requirement for any expert should be the ability to explain the subject matter in a simple way so that the layman can understand the important concepts.

[Don Mahaffey]

The term “expert” seems to be tied to expertise in technical matters. I’m not so sure one can be an expert in artistic endeavors. As for golf design, my feeling is the golf courses developed by technical experts with an overriding focus on functionality fall far short of those developed by artists. Unfortunately, due I think to the demand for excellent conditions and the fear of backlash if one falls a little short, the technical is dominating the artistic in modern Golf design.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,


Yes that is the point is that Plato becomes not intuitive. But with further reading it becomes clear that Plato is discussing the fact that due to the human condition. We are limited in the knowledge that one can acquire for Plato this limit is set at birth and therefore you cannot acquire more knowledge than the limit of the knowledge set at birth.

Ben,


Not to belabor the point here, but just about everything i know in the form of "knowledge" is stuff I've definitely learned after birth like the Pythagorean theorem or the wing speed velocity of a sparrow...so perhaps this is just a wording issue.  Maybe what he meant to say is something like the ability to utilize "wisdom" or "intuition" or "to analyze".  That would certainly be plausible.

[Steve Lang]

   Kalen is that a European or African sparrow?


 I think someone famous said "imagination is more important than knowledge."  So if one is to challenge status quo wisdom or an expert's position, a little imagination should suffice and go a long way in moving theories to new limits. 


Your last google search, as factually correct as it may be, doesn't make you an expert, being able to use it though, may qualify you in arts and sciences for the moment, as they'll always be dynamic...

[Kalen Braley]

Steve,

I was hoping someone would get that!  Nice job! 

As for my quibble with Platos viewpoint, I just simply don't agree, unless he intended to say something like imagination or intuition or something to that effect.

But I certainly do agree that having that eureka moment, doesn't necessarily need to correlate with someone with a ton of field knowledge.

To quote another movie:

"In 1905, there were hundreds of professors renowned for their studies of the universe, but it was a 26-year-old Swiss patent clerk doing physics in his spare time who changed the world. Can you imagine if Einstein would have given that up just so he could get drunk with his buddies in Vienna?”

[Steve Lang]

   Kalen,


Maybe Plato had an idea about microbiology, DNA, RNA etc,,, that babies either have the genes to be smart or not, let alone deal with the old "smart in school vs dumb in life" paradigm.


Play on

[Peter Pallotta]

Of course, Plato (like many others before and since) posited the existence of a soul along with the body, the immaterial along with the material, with the latter being a mere shadow (as in the cave analogy) of the Real, of the Idea/Ideal, and thus always in flux and subject to change (that's why you can't step into the same river twice). To 'know' is to be willing & able to step outside the temporal & fleeting to get to the true & fundamental.
Sometimes I think that the only way we can do that, i.e. be willing to step away/out of the 'everyday' experience, which is the only realm where we earn degrees and garner praise and make money etc, is through love of something greater/vaster than ourselves and our own momentary interests.
So maybe that's what makes/defines true expertise, i.e. love.         

[Joe Hancock]

An expert would know that the bird in the above referenced Monty Python bit was a swallow, not a sparrow.

[Steve Lang]

    Joe, well the Sturnus vulgaris versus Passer melanurus wing speed debate is open for discussion amongst certain experts, notwithstanding favorite vintage Monty Python escapades.

Peter, all i know is that I love to feather a baby 53 degree wedge shot from a tight lie to a pin from 85 yds, protected or not!  I prevail more often than not,... I don't consider myself an expert, but like to ask the group: "any questions?" For some reason no one answers...

[Mike_Young]

I think one requirement is that a person serve on a green committee or a Homeowners Association board along the way.  That's where I have met the most experts...

[Terry Lavin]

Experience, balls, brains, persuasiveness and the ability to accept episodic error.

[John Kirk]

Kalen -

I did mention it earlier, the reading of the article about Gregg Popovich's expertise in wine and the Jeopardy champ who has obliterated all the records, mostly by approaching the game in a different manner. It's nothing more than that.

Hi George,

Just a gentle disagreement here.  I've been watching Mr. Holzhauer obliterate all previous Jeopardy records.  In the 35 year history of the game (as hosted by Alex Trebek), James Holzhauer has at least the five highest single day totals, in a 17 game winning streak.

His strategy maximizes his ability to capitalize on the Daily Doubles, but at the heart of his success is immense Jeopardy-style, fact-based knowledge.  I think he's correctly answered 90% of the Daily Double and Final Jeopardy questions.  Apparently he was an excellent Math and Science talent in high school, but not a particularly diligent student.  I think the guy is an uncommon genius.  It's amazing to watch, but the shows are becoming a bit dull because he dominates the ordinarily gifted people he competes against.


Alex Trebek has pancreatic cancer, but is committed to another season of the show.  One of the all-time greats, he is.

Returning to the subject of experts, I am reminded of the Bertrand Russell quote, made in 1933 while lamenting the rise of the Nazis:

"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

The world is scary with experts these days.   

[Sean_A]

Regarding the 10,000 hour threshold popularized by Malcolm Gladwell:

3.  I've spent a lot of time studying popular music, learning the famous musicians and their songs.  As part of my study I found an extensive survey (over 250,000 people) that calculated people spend 10-15 hours per week throughout their lives listening to music.  Almost everybody has spent 10,000 hours listening to music.  I know the names and artists of a few thousand songs, maybe as many as ten thousand.  But there are well over a million songs out there.  The subject is humbling, almost everyone knows what they like, and usually it's not what you like.

I would think a requirement for any expert should be the ability to explain the subject matter in a simple way so that the layman can understand the important concepts.

Being a life long fan of music, all types, I wouldn't consider myself an expert by a long shot for two reasons.  I don't play an instrument and I don't read music.  I clearly see a big difference in the understanding of music with these two skills. Listening is simply not enough to be an expert.


Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean
yours gets to the point of my previous posts, ie it's not (or shouldn't be) about what others perceive you to be but what you actually are. A great (ie expert) musician, known for the beauty and lyricism of his playing and the long, melodically pleasing lines he played and his mastery of the instrument, was once teaching a class of young musicians and was asked 'What do you think is the most important thing for a young jazz musicians to have, and what would you most like to develop'?
They were stunned when he answered: 'Great technique, and more of it'.
They were stunned because they expected, from such a lovely (and already very technically accomplished) player, something more subtle or spiritual or esoteric, rather than a nod to 'mere mechanics'. And so he explained:
'I can have hundreds of original musical ideas, and I can be centered in my heart and in love, and I can know the music's history completely, and I can be inspired by the great Spirit endlessly -- but none of it will mean anything at all or matter even one little bit if I don't have the technique to express it, if my fingers can't play what my heart and mind and soul suggests to me. I want more technique so that I can be a more perfect channel for great music'.
Now, there's an expert for you, IMO

[Pat Burke]

In my own world, I was blessed to be raised by a family of golf professionals.
Grandfather, dad, mom, all fantastic in their ways in various parts of the golf business. A stepdad who I feel is one of the great golf course superintendents I’ve seen.


I was exposed to an enormous amount of life experiences in playing, teaching, and learning the game, with a healthy side dose of working on maintenance crews for many years.  I also had the opportunity to work with Leadbetter,,Harmon, and many others as I pursued my playing career, and later in life as I continue trying to learn to become a good coach/teacher.


Working with guys like Leadbetter is humbling.  I have watched home working with many different players, and am amazed at his creativity in communicating to each student.  I know he has a rep for rocking a model on his players, but I’ve not seen that in my interactions, I’ve seen an amazing eye, and ability to move a student towards a goal.


Each day I teach, I learn.  I also learn I’m a long way from being an expert,
So, I’d say talent, experience, learning, commitment, and communicating ideas clearly lead to a path towards expertise from my experiences.