What makes someone an expert on something?

[Lou_Duran]

I don't think I have deep-seated concerns about commerce.  Whether it be private commerce or public governmental administration, I have concerns about greed and corruption, and properly policing unjust activity.  I want efficiency, and I want financial compensation commensurate with societal contribution.

Your previous commentary equates expertise with financial compensation, and I don't necessarily agree.  While you see me as having "deep-seated concerns about commerce", I'm thinking "Lou thinks everything is related to money".  Let's say I was the world's leading expert on New Zealand ornithology, and was asked how to best protect the fairy tern (aka Tara Iti) as part of an effort to build a world class golf course.  That person may make a little money for offering their opinion, but it is unlikely they are compensated in any substantial way.  The big money passes hands when experts offer his/her thoughts or skills in a highly compensated profession, or in a way that benefits moneyed interests.

When I hear expertise, I think of great knowledge, and not necessarily skill.  I think of skill being a physical manifestation of knowledge and practice, but the simple definition of expertise is "expert skill or knowledge in a particular field."

JK,


You did indicate time pressures and your comments so support.


From the top, you want efficiency from a scheme that would pay people not on market-based (supply and demand) factors, but "commensurate with societal contribution".  Even the reddest of Soviets acknowledged the need for a rare capitalist economy to signal the price of things.  The prospect of having to lobby a "People's Council" for the proper value of my labor is downright frightening.  Talk about opening the doors to influence and corruption (didn't "Animal Farm" speak to this?).


If you would split just a little time from your busy schedule to actually read what I wrote before going Pelosi on me, maybe you would not have misrepresented my suggestion that being well-paid for your expertise is not necessary, but only verification or reinforcement of the qualification.  I am hardly "equating" compensation with expertise, wouldn't you say?.


As to me thinking "everything is related to money", again, you misrepresent me.  Money for me is but a medium of exchange and a storage of value (the latter which has a lot to do with liberty and freedom).  Had I been obsessed with money, a) I would have played a lot of less golf, and b) I would have a lot more of it.


Re: the bird guy, that he is getting paid suggests that he is considered to be some sort of an expert.  The amount of his compensation probably reflects the value of the advice he is giving and what other bird experts are willing to charge for their opinions.  I understand the frustration that an English professor experiences when he sees the football coach making $5 Million annually at a Div. 1 school while he makes a comparatively measly $100k.  Perhaps the bird expert and the English prof might have considered careers in real estate development and football.  Or did the "Committee To Equalize Income and Achieve Cosmic Justice" hold a gun to their heads?


Anthony Butler-


I hadn't heard of the fallacy of transferable expertise, but it sounds similar to the "Halo Effect".  Unfortunately, many of us occasionally fall for it.  We expand the abilities of subject experts into areas that they have little to offer (e.g. paying a Hogan Tour winner while trying to qualify for the big leagues to teach my then young son).  Hollywood stars with barely a high school education pontificating about politics and economics is a good example.


As to the skill set you describe (suffering fools gladly), I do not possess it; not an expert.  It is a quality not widely distributed in the golf business and perhaps a cause of its high turnover.         

[Sven Nilsen]

I always say, smart, successful people are dangerous; they think they know everything...


Of course, my wife would say I think I know everything. To which I always respond, no, I know I know everything, there's a difference!


But I'm kidding, of course. If there's one thing that 25 years of printing t's has taught me, it's how little I really know about anything.


Sven -


I'm sad you didn't offer any thoughts. Maybe next time.

George:


Read back in the thread a bit.  My thoughts are there.


Or read my last post.  They're there too.


Whoever everyone else gives the last word to is the expert.


Everything else is ego or foolishness.


Sven

[Kalen Braley]

I always say, smart, successful people are dangerous; they think they know everything...
Of course, my wife would say I think I know everything. To which I always respond, no, I know I know everything, there's a difference!

ut I'm kidding, of course. If there's one thing that 25 years of printing t's has taught me, it's how little I really know about anything.

Sven -


I'm sad you didn't offer any thoughts. Maybe next time.

George:

Whoever everyone else gives the last word to is the expert.

Everything else is ego or foolishness.

Sven

Sven,


I have to disagree there a bit...just because someone gives the last word to someone doesn't mean they actually are the expert.  If anything the foolishness lies in far far too many people giving the last word to all the wrong people who are the last thing from an expert...

[Sven Nilsen]

Kalen:


Would you give the last word to anyone but an expert?


Sven

[Peter Pallotta]

K's touching on what for me is the most important (or at least most interesting) aspect, ie the relative vs the absolute, the 'relational' vs the essence. Is an expert an 'expert' only in the context of other people's eyes -- because others defer to him and pay him handsomely for his opinion?
Two highly regarded generals, both having to decide on strategy for a very tough battle. Both General A and General B are expert enough to realize that taking Hill 272 is the key to victory, and both know that they need to send up 1000 men through dangerous terrain to get there. General A makes the decision quickly, boldly, confidently; while General B comes to the same decision, but only after a long sleepless night, and tentatively and with much doubt. (His subordinates watch this seeming indecision and wonder about his competence, his expertise -- and find themselves wishing they served under the much more confident General A instead.) But the truth is: General A is a good general, but not an 'expert' one -- and he is blithely unaware that his strategy, while bringing victory, will cost the lives of 400 men. General B, on the other hand, is such an expert that, not only does he know the victorious strategy, but he also knows how many lives will be lost; his seeming tentativeness and doubt and sleepless night weren't signs that he knew less than General A but that he knew *more* -- and that he was human and humane enough, and enough of a true, expert General, to second guess himself and to put reality ahead of 'appearances' and his own ego and careerism and to search for another strategy in order to try to protect his troops the best he could.
General B suffered long over his choice, precisely because he was, in absolute terms, the true expert  - but in a 'relative' assessment of expertise, ie what his subordinates thought of him, who would get the next big promotion and be paid handsomely etc, none of that mattered. It was General A who became the star, and later a CNN talking head. And he's great on tv: always speaking so boldly and with such 'expertise', and the hosts always give him the last word.
P
(General B quietly retired soon afterwards, to his home near Kansas City, and plays Prairie Dunes 3 times a week; if you met him on the 1st tee you'd never know what an expert he really was/is.)

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen:

Would you give the last word to anyone but an expert?

Sven

Depends on the topic I suppose.  A meaningless GCA argument?  Wouldn't care much. 

But a real topic perhaps a domestic policy, a scientific finding, fiscal analysis, etc...I would be very selective and do at least some due diligence and better my understanding... as well as evaluate the ones making the "final" claims.  But its tough out there, i will certainly admit...finding facts among the oceans of fiction.

[Joe Hancock]

To paraphrase Sven, the expert will allow the fool to have the last word, as it is folly to attempt to teach the fool who has no desire to learn from the expert. Plus, the expert knows far quicker who’s who.

[Lou_Duran]

To paraphrase Sven, the expert will allow the fool to have the last word, as it is folly to attempt to teach the fool who has no desire to learn from the expert. Plus, the expert knows far quicker who’s who.

And by posting you risk having the last word and the honor?  I'll cover you.


On a related topic, a common observation from any number of substantive people I've known is that the older they get, the more they've learned, the greater the accumulation of experience, the less sure they are of possessing "the answer".  In a highly multivariate world, conclusions based on knowledge and past experience can suggest future directions, but are hardly infallible.


In proposing business initiatives or opportunities- say the development of a new course- I like the practice of presenting three scenarios, "optimistic", "most-likely", "worst-case", and allow the real "experts" to read the tea leaves through their learned prisms.  In my experience in the private and public sectors, the use of highly-paid consultants was as much for their wise counsel as for demonstrating the exercise of due diligence (and blame transfer) in the event things went south- "just followed the advice of our esteemed 'experts' ".       

[Anthony Butler]

Anthony Butler-


I hadn't heard of the fallacy of transferable expertise, but it sounds similar to the "Halo Effect".  Unfortunately, many of us occasionally fall for it.  We expand the abilities of subject experts into areas that they have little to offer (e.g. paying a Hogan Tour winner while trying to qualify for the big leagues to teach my then young son).  Hollywood stars with barely a high school education pontificating about politics and economics is a good example.


As to the skill set you describe (suffering fools gladly), I do not possess it; not an expert.  It is a quality not widely distributed in the golf business and perhaps a cause of its high turnover.       

I imagine at least half the reason you don't like Hollywood stars 'pontificating' on politics and economics is because they tend to offer opinions far to the left of your beliefs..


My definition of 'expertise' is not so narrow as to only include that gained in the classrooms and halls of academia. George Clooney is the usual target of conservative news outlets like Fox News when it comes to Hollywood 'liberals'. Most  of his public appearances and activities are on the topic of Darfur and other places in the world where human rights abuses are occurring on a large scale. He has donated large of amounts of time and money to understanding and shining a light on this issue in the hopes that Western democracies will focus more efforts and resources on solving these issues. He continues that work with his wife who is an internationally respected human rights lawyer. His work has been recognized and awarded by multiple international organizations like the United Nations. Despite the fact I have a Masters and an undergraduate degree in political science, and Clooney dropped out of the University of Cincinnati in this junior year,  I am going to defer to his expertise on this subject... as indeed most sensible people would.

On the other side of the political spectrum from Clooney is Kelsey Grammer (a fellow university dropout) who has both supported conservative political causes and donated money to many Republican campaigns. Despite combing through several biographical articles on Grammer I see no evidence that he has any life experiences or participated in any significant initiatives that would allow him to build expertise on political or economic issues. Reading his Wikepedia page, his life experience - other than his acting career - seems to consist of recovery from drug addiction, getting married and divorced, fathering lots of children and dealing with his close relatives being murdered.

I would say in those circumstances one of these gentleman has arrived at his viewpoints through his deep immersion and commitment to the subject matter, and the other one is looking to keep as much of his considerable paycheck as possible.


BTW - I don't have the skills or patience to put up with people who are full of BS either..

[Lou_Duran]

Anthony B,


You are directionally right about my dislike for Hollywood stars acting as subject experts in unrelated areas, predominantly from a far left world-view (can't say I knew anything about Grammer, and come to think of it, other than Heston, no other actor comes to mind as espousing strong conservative political views ad naseum like Sean Penn, Hanoi Jane, Barbara Streisand, Woody Harrelson, etc. on the left).   I may feel different if they were supporting my biases, but I doubt that their opinions would reinforce mine.  Perhaps I would be less reluctant to support their work if their activism was more measured.


It would never occur to me to perform much due diligence on an actor.  I understand that Bono immerses himself deeply in the causes he champions.  About the only thing I've ever heard about Clooney was that he complained frequently to the Newport Beach authorities because too many of his fans were peering into his property at the bay's point (as we were told by a tourist boat operator).


And yes, I agree that formal schooling is hardly the only source of information and experience.  I've known some very successful people with unimpressive educational credentials who became "experts" through the school of hard knocks.  GCA is one field which has a history of successful practitioners coming from a variety of backgrounds.




 

[Anthony Butler]

Anthony B,


You are directionally right about my dislike for Hollywood stars acting as subject experts in unrelated areas, predominantly from a far left world-view (can't say I knew anything about Grammer, and come to think of it, other than Heston, no other actor comes to mind as espousing strong conservative political views ad naseum like Sean Penn, Hanoi Jane, Barbara Streisand, Woody Harrelson, etc. on the left).   I may feel different if they were supporting my biases, but I doubt that their opinions would reinforce mine.  Perhaps I would be less reluctant to support their work if their activism was more measured.

Lou - I'll share a funny story about Jane Fonda, or as you refer to her as 'Hanoi Jane'.

About 20 years ago my social circle included Fonda's daughter Vanessa Vadim... At some point, an invitation to have lunch with Jane Fonda came my way. As you can imagine, I was heavily counseled on what conversational topics were off limits before the meal. On the way to the restaurant I commented; "Don't worry, I won't ask your Mum about sitting on a tank in North Vietnam 30 years ago. In fact, I'd actually prefer to have a meal with your Dad (Roger Vadim - Brigitte Bardot, Catherine Deneuve, Jane Fonda-Barbarella phase... ) He's a deadset legend in my books."

Her response;"What the hell are you talking about... my Dad is a complete asshole."

Of course, I ended up at the far end of the lunch table from Jane Fonda. She seemed nice enough from what I could tell, although she did rush off at the end of the meal to meet up with Ted Turner, who had a private jet waiting for her at Reagan National.

More important, though, she did pick up the bill for lunch, so there are some benefits to socializing with communists... ;-)

[Lou_Duran]

Funny story Anthony.  I would enjoy having lunch with Jane Fonda if she was willing to honestly share her point of view.  It is a pity that many of us tend to stay within a rather narrow lane in our social interactions.


About a year ago I spent some enjoyable time with a CA couple who were "best friends" since college with a fellow GCAer, a man who swung predominantly from the left.  The couple were serious if indifferent golfers and invited me to their highly regarded home club, even going so far as writing their contact information and urging me two or three times to contact them during my next visit.  Something apparently intervened overnight- perhaps a conversation with the GCAer's wife (a self-described "yellow dog Democrat) who may have warned them of my polar opposite political orientations, or maybe the aftermath of some serious consumption of alcohol- but their goodbyes the next day were markedly cooler with no mention of golf in the future. 


As an aside, a conservative family member has been around Bill Clinton two or three times and reports that the President was a very amiable, interesting man, conversant in any number of subjects.  He was also part of a social circle in NYC which included Chelsea and her husband and found them to be pretty normal people.

[Anthony Butler]

Funny story Anthony.  I would enjoy having lunch with Jane Fonda if she was willing to honestly share her point of view.  It is a pity that many of us tend to stay within a rather narrow lane in our social interactions.


About a year ago I spent some enjoyable time with a CA couple who were "best friends" since college with a fellow GCAer, a man who swung predominantly from the left.  The couple were serious if indifferent golfers and invited me to their highly regarded home club, even going so far as writing their contact information and urging me two or three times to contact them during my next visit.  Something apparently intervened overnight- perhaps a conversation with the GCAer's wife (a self-described "yellow dog Democrat) who may have warned them of my polar opposite political orientations, or maybe the aftermath of some serious consumption of alcohol- but their goodbyes the next day were markedly cooler with no mention of golf in the future. 


As an aside, a conservative family member has been around Bill Clinton two or three times and reports that the President was a very amiable, interesting man, conversant in any number of subjects.  He was also part of a social circle in NYC which included Chelsea and her husband and found them to be pretty normal people.

We have a number of former Obama Administration people living in our town including a member of his cabinet and a former Ambassador. I like them both very much...

I have friends in Kennebunkport who traveled in the same circles as former President George HW. Bush. I met him several times at Cape Arundel both during and after his Presidency. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word.



My understanding is that Chelsea and her husband, who is also Jewish, used to socialize with Kushner and Ivanka... That might be a bit awkward going forward.

[John Kirk]

I imagine at least half the reason you don't like Hollywood stars 'pontificating' on politics and economics is because they tend to offer opinions far to the left of your beliefs..

[A paragraph about George Clooney]
[A paragraph about Kelsey Grammer...quite tragic]


BTW - I don't have the skills or patience to put up with people who are full of BS either...

I read this post by Mr. Butler three or four times, trying to figure out whether I was the person who is full of BS.  I'm still not sure, but since Mr. Butler and Mr. Duran are being chummy with one another, I'm going to make the paranoid assumption.


I've thought long and hard about publicly responding to the last few posts, but have decided to do so.  Here goes...

From what I can tell, it appears the most offensive remarks in my post (reply #66) are in the first paragraph:

"I don't think I have deep-seated concerns about commerce.  Whether it be private commerce or public governmental administration, I have concerns about greed and corruption, and properly policing unjust activity.  I want efficiency, and I want financial compensation commensurate with societal contribution."

Although I tossed off these remarks rather quickly, they were deliberately anodyne in nature.   When I say "proper policing", I neither argue for greater or less active oversight.  When I say financial compensation commensurate with societal contribution, there is no potential solution offered, whether that be a greater or lesser commitment to free market ideals.  Do I think a truly free market would make compensation and contribution more aligned with one another?   There is no way you can know what I believe from this paragraph.  I made the remarks intentionally vague and general, because I don't want to discuss politics publicly, and I don't want you to know.

Perhaps if I said, "I want to fight for Truth, Justice and the American Way", maybe it would have been better understood as a general comment.


To arrive at the conclusions made in reply #75, assumptions had to be made about the intent of my bland words.  These days many Republicans see a "D" for Democrat, and believe their intent is to destroy their world.  The same goes for Democrats perception of Republicans.  I just want the facts.


I know nothing about being an independent businessman, having worked in a corporate office environment, but I spend some time daily studying macroeconomics.  Maybe if somebody posted a study with some real economic data, we would have a discussion about it.  But this is a golf architecture website, and any politics/economics discussion here is always a few scattered paragraphs, some anecdotal data, with a heavy dose of "I'm right and you're wrong".  With that said, many here are experts in the economics of golf course development and implementation, and it is much appreciated.


The one comment I wish I hadn't made is the "you think everything is about money" comment.  That seemed to hit a nerve, and I apologize.  It wasn't quite interpreted the way I meant it, but that doesn't matter.  I started this whole brouhaha by objecting to your comment that expertise is related to compensation.  Water almost completely under the bridge now.


This is not the only time in the last few years that somebody has gotten angry with me online.  I've been hassled a couple times.  I swear it all started with the Dismal River vs. Ballyneal thread.  The thing is, I just want to discuss golf architecture.  I don't care who wins.  What a fucking train wreck that was.

GolfClubAtlas.com exists to promote frank commentary on golf architecture.  That is the explicit purpose of this website.  Except we can't be as free in our opinions anymore.  GCA started as an outsider, a maverick making bold statements and novel criticisms of golf courses, and the architects who design them.  Gradually the website evolves into a key media outlet for modern course design, and it becomes part of the industry machine.  Now it's harder to give unvarnished opinions about the golf courses without offending influential people, and censorship begins to appear, mostly in the form of "sacred cows".  Negative commentary is now more consequential to the economic well-being and/or status of clubs.  It's the inevitable push and pull seen daily between the media and the world, and only natural that this should happen.


These days it seems every time I let my guard down and begin to participate, I become angry about something.  About two days before this recent dust-up happened, I thought to myself, "Gee, this has been fun lately...is it going to last?"  Maybe a solid 20 years as a Internet creature has made me hypersensitive to criticism, and I'm not willing to take it anymore.  My life is moving back to real people.  The response in reply #75 seems wildly out of proportion to my comments in reply #66, especially since they were intentionally designed to be non-committal.  You don't know me.  This is a golf website.  People should be nicer to one another here.  It's a community of like-minded, well intentioned people.  Go pick on somebody else.  And I should never have participated in a thread about experts. 

Finally, George H.W. Bush strikes me as being a great man, and an underrated President and statesman.
 

[Lou_Duran]

JK,


As I mentioned by IM, I was neither angry nor offended by any of your comments.  You have your opinions, I have mine.  You didn't like something I wrote in general (not directed at you- a link between being considered an expert and compensation) and stated that it bothered you and that I was wrong.  OK, I disagreed with you and noted why.  We should just leave it at that.


Regarding your last comment, I like both President Bushes very much as people.  Though they conducted themselves with dignity and proper decorum, I don't think highly of their accomplishments in office.  I would enjoy a round with "W" just to see if I can keep up with him.  He is well-liked locally where he is out in public often.


Cheers!

[Tim Martin]

I imagine at least half the reason you don't like Hollywood stars 'pontificating' on politics and economics is because they tend to offer opinions far to the left of your beliefs..

[A paragraph about George Clooney]
[A paragraph about Kelsey Grammer...quite tragic]


BTW - I don't have the skills or patience to put up with people who are full of BS either...

I read this post by Mr. Butler three or four times, trying to figure out whether I was the person who is full of BS.  I'm still not sure, but since Mr. Butler and Mr. Duran are being chummy with one another, I'm going to make the paranoid assumption.


I've thought long and hard about publicly responding to the last few posts, but have decided to do so.  Here goes...

From what I can tell, it appears the most offensive remarks in my post (reply #66) are in the first paragraph:
"I don't think I have deep-seated concerns about commerce.  Whether it be private commerce or public governmental administration, I have concerns about greed and corruption, and properly policing unjust activity.  I want efficiency, and I want financial compensation commensurate with societal contribution."Although I tossed off these remarks rather quickly, they were deliberately anodyne in nature.   When I say "proper policing", I neither argue for greater or less active oversight.  When I say financial compensation commensurate with societal contribution, there is no potential solution offered, whether that be a greater or lesser commitment to free market ideals.  Do I think a truly free market would make compensation and contribution more aligned with one another?   There is no way you can know what I believe from this paragraph.  I made the remarks intentionally vague and general, because I don't want to discuss politics publicly, and I don't want you to know.

Perhaps if I said, "I want to fight for Truth, Justice and the American Way", maybe it would have been better understood as a general comment.


To arrive at the conclusions made in reply #75, assumptions had to be made about the intent of my bland words.  These days many Republicans see a "D" for Democrat, and believe their intent is to destroy their world.  The same goes for Democrats perception of Republicans.  I just want the facts.


I know nothing about being an independent businessman, having worked in a corporate office environment, but I spend some time daily studying macroeconomics.  Maybe if somebody posted a study with some real economic data, we would have a discussion about it.  But this is a golf architecture website, and any politics/economics discussion here is always a few scattered paragraphs, some anecdotal data, with a heavy dose of "I'm right and you're wrong".  With that said, many here are experts in the economics of golf course development and implementation, and it is much appreciated.


The one comment I wish I hadn't made is the "you think everything is about money" comment.  That seemed to hit a nerve, and I apologize.  It wasn't quite interpreted the way I meant it, but that doesn't matter.  I started this whole brouhaha by objecting to your comment that expertise is related to compensation.  Water almost completely under the bridge now.


This is not the only time in the last few years that somebody has gotten angry with me online.  I've been hassled a couple times.  I swear it all started with the Dismal River vs. Ballyneal thread.  The thing is, I just want to discuss golf architecture.  I don't care who wins.  What a fucking train wreck that was.

GolfClubAtlas.com exists to promote frank commentary on golf architecture.  That is the explicit purpose of this website.  Except we can't be as free in our opinions anymore.  GCA started as an outsider, a maverick making bold statements and novel criticisms of golf courses, and the architects who design them.  Gradually the website evolves into a key media outlet for modern course design, and it becomes part of the industry machine.  Now it's harder to give unvarnished opinions about the golf courses without offending influential people, and censorship begins to appear, mostly in the form of "sacred cows".  Negative commentary is now more consequential to the economic well-being and/or status of clubs.  It's the inevitable push and pull seen daily between the media and the world, and only natural that this should happen.


These days it seems every time I let my guard down and begin to participate, I become angry about something.  About two days before this recent dust-up happened, I thought to myself, "Gee, this has been fun lately...is it going to last?"  Maybe a solid 20 years as a Internet creature has made me hypersensitive to criticism, and I'm not willing to take it anymore.  My life is moving back to real people.  The response in reply #75 seems wildly out of proportion to my comments in reply #66, especially since they were intentionally designed to be non-committal.  You don't know me.  This is a golf website.  People should be nicer to one another here.  It's a community of like-minded, well intentioned people.  Go pick on somebody else.  And I should never have participated in a thread about experts. 

Finally, George H.W. Bush strikes me as being a great man, and an underrated President and statesman.

John-I think you need to go a little easier on the angst. Give yourself a break man.

[Anthony Butler]

John, I certainly wasn't directly or indirectly inferring you are full of BS. Unless, of course, you are one of those club members who loves to offer your opinion to management on how the clubhouse and course should be managed and operated, despite having no relevant experience in either field.


Yes, as you pointed our, Lou and I were having a moment of agreement, which is noteworthy since we are polar opposites on the political spectrum. Unlike a few other people who don't post on this site much anymore, I appreciate the fact Lou doesn't start a political discussion with the idea that anyone supporting a Democratic policy must be:

a) a child
b) a communist
c)  subject to immediate deportation if they are not a US citizen
d) all of the above


I think it's unlikely Lou was referring to you either. You would probably know if he was calling you out...


So Tim is correct - you need to give yourself a break.
 
 

I imagine at least half the reason you don't like Hollywood stars 'pontificating' on politics and economics is because they tend to offer opinions far to the left of your beliefs..

[A paragraph about George Clooney]
[A paragraph about Kelsey Grammer...quite tragic]


BTW - I don't have the skills or patience to put up with people who are full of BS either...

John-I think you need to go a little easier on the angst. Give yourself a break man.