What Does it Mean to be an Expert?

Nowadays, it seems like everyone tosses around the term expert without really thinking about what it means. People specialize in something for a few months, and call themselves an expert. People pass a test, and call themselves an expert. People often cite Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hour claim, using that measurable value to define what makes an expert (ignoring the fact that Gladwell himself says that the popular interpretation of his 10,000 rule is incorrect). A lot of times, its gotten to the point where person A knows just a little more than person B in something, and person A is considered an expert.

So, then, what does it mean to be an expert? Bear with me while I lay a little bit of groundwork.

I was recently listening to an interview with the late psychologist Anders Ericsson, and in his research on experts and expertise, he found that the top performers in a variety of fields got to be top performers because of deliberate practice. On its face, this is not necessarily surprising, but there is a subtle point in there that often escapes notice, and that is that experts are made, not born. In other words, innate IQ or ability often has no bearing on whether someone becomes an expert. I say often because, admittedly, there are some pursuits where genetics plays a part - being 6' tall is rather short for a basketball player, so players of that height are few and far between because the sport inherently selects for taller players, and height is genetic.

So, if innate IQ or ability has little bearing on success, and deliberate practice is how one gets good at something, what does it mean to be an expert? The takeaway from Dr Ericsson that I got was that an expert is someone who is so knowledgeable about the subject matter, that they are able to create a mental representation of the current system, know what is possible, know what is not possible, and know how things will change with certain inputs (or stimuli).

Lets look at a few examples. We all know that being good at chess is a matter of 'looking ahead {some number} of moves'. When looking at a chess board, the novice player sees pieces, and goes through a progression: "ok, if I move the rook from here to here, then my opponent will likely counter with this other move, and then I'll move my bishop, etc, etc" That is one potential input into the system. Going through that progression for every piece is virtually impossible, and every step away from the initial input (moving the rook) widens the cone of uncertainty even more, just like a hurricane forecast map. Keeping track of all that is impossible, and usually best left to a computer. That is novice and amateur level skill.

However, the master chess player sees the positions of the pieces on the board, and through experience, knows where the lines of force are, knows where their pieces are in positions of strength, knows where the opponent is weak, and so forth. They are playing at an entirely other level where they don't just know the position of the pieces, they have seen and studied these positions enough to know how to tip, or keep, the odds in their favor. It's less about tactics with individual pieces, and more about the holistic view of the game board, with all the pieces.

A similar thing happens with the professional basketball player. With a quick glance, they know where the players are positioned relative to one another, know the players strengths and weaknesses, and know how to move the ball to help tip the odds in their favor.

The thing I like about this definition is that it is not based on some arbitrary number or external validation, such as passing a test. We use those external validations as a way to convey to other people that we possess a certain amount of knowledge - which has its uses - but I think it's important to recognize that is just knowledge, not expertise. Just like I can tell you how the pieces on a chess board move, but that certainly does not make me an expert in chess.