Imitators may get frustrated by the need to go deep with others because they can’t, but to say that experts don’t share that same frustration is nonsense.<p>There are many audiences who want you to go deep, but are not capable of a necessary level of understanding. In fact, these audiences are the ones who become what the author claims are imitators; pretending to understand when they do not.<p>Experts are experts not because they’re teachers; they’re experts because they’re experienced and are executionally excellent.
In my line of work, clients are often looking for something new - something that hasn’t been done before or is at least substantially novel in important ways. I’ve noticed that the difference between neophytes and experts in my biz is that amateurs say ‘I’ve never done that before but how hard could it be?’, whereas experts say ‘I’ve never done that before but I assume it’s full of unknowns and traps.’
To this I would add: Not everyone who claims not to be an expert ... isn't.<p>As you <i>practice</i> a craft, you build up positive knowledge - what works. And you build up negative knowledge - what doesn't work. But you also build up humility; the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know.<p>Knowledge increases sub-linearly, assuming a modicum of curiosity, but humility is like a parabola. The "experts" of this article are those at the bottom of the humility parabola. They have quite a bit of positive knowledge, some negative knowledge, but they don't really know yet what they don't know.<p>_Many "experts" don't consider themselves experts._ They all too often say "Hmm, interesting question, I don't know, but...". They are defined by humility and curiosity.<p>Imagine the question "Why is the sky blue?". Somebody who has just finished an undergraduate degree in theoretical physics and happens to have learnt learnt about Rayleigh scattering will sound much more like an expert than somebody who says "Hmm, interesting question, I don't know, but..." and then spends fifteen minutes figuring it out on the spot.<p>Like the phenomenon of the newish driver: nobody seems more of an expert driver than somebody who passed their test three months ago. They have learnt all the rules, they think they know everything, they often don't have much curiosity, and they have yet to learn humility.<p>Of course, this often doesn't matter. Many people don't want an actual expert - they want somebody who sounds like an expert _to other people_. Oracle don't advertise to people who buy software. They advertise to the people who second guess the people who buy software.<p>To quote a wonderful ex-co-worker, "Most people <i>need</i> a generalist. But they want - and are willing to pay for - a specialist."
I think a positive sign of expertise is when you question someone and they go "oh right, I neglected to establish this foundational concept before making my main point". Or "oh right, let me step back and answer the question again from a different angle".<p>Basically, sometimes if you bounce your ignorance off a true expert you can see it reflected back in a positive light as they try to massage ideas into your perspective. Bullshitters aren't able to do this.
I love fs.blog, a relevant one for this is the chauffeur test from <a href="https://fs.blog/two-types-of-knowledge/" rel="nofollow">https://fs.blog/two-types-of-knowledge/</a>
"If you want the highest quality information, you have to speak to the best people."<p>what a silly thing to say. High quality information is derived from accurate sources subjected to scientific rigor over time. The best people? Best at what? Character and competence arent the same.
It's a great post. However, I don't think I've ever met someone who was _trying_ to be an "imitator".<p>Keep in mind that the majority of the world's population grow up in places with little access to the information one needs to be exposed to to become an "expert".<p>So go easy on imitators. Help guide them to enlightenment.<p>Don't flip the bozo bit.
Because I'm a senior engineer I am giving a lot of "Expertise" interviews for my company. Recruiters tend to presume that seniority implies broad expertise. In my case it doesn't. There's really only one subject that I feel I'm qualified to assess for expertise, but hardly anyone who interviews at the company claims anything about that subject on their resume.<p>Ninety percent of the time when I interview on that subject the candidate ends up getting a "hard no" from me just based on the first ~10 minutes of the interview, but on a very rare occasion I run across someone who's actually an expert in the field. I'll know because we'll quickly blast past all of the "<subject> 101" questions in the first 5 or 6 minutes, and then I can quickly adapt to deep-dive into technical details, giving them what I know to be fairly novel problems in the domain and then seeing how they apply first principles to tackle them. The "interview" ends up looking more like a collaborative brainstorming session at that point. It's incredible when that happens, which sadly is only maybe once or twice a year.<p>But usually I end up giving an "Expertise" interview for whatever it is they claim expertise in, whether I myself possess expertise in that subject or not. For the past several months the most prominent subject on literally every single resume has been AI/ML. I certainly don't claim expertise in that field, although I did take a graduate course on computational machine learning theory at university. That gives me "just enough" of a handle to not come across as a completely incompetent interviewer, but it feels like a farce.<p>With all this AI/ML hype I feel like the "Expertise" interview just ends up being someone pretending to have expertise in AI/ML being interviewed by someone pretending to be able to assess expertise in AI/ML.
The article is simplistic with too many assumptions.<p>There are no "Experts" but only "Levels of Expertise"; and the only way to identify the correct level of someone is to be at a particular level yourself based on a objective and honest appraisal of your own knowledge in that domain. Both the perceiver and the perceived are factors to be considered. In common parlance the title "Expert" is bestowed on somebody (usually to the bemusement of that person) when a sizable group of the population acknowledges (not necessarily logically since we have Marketing/PR/Spin/Propaganda/etc. involved) him/her to be at a higher-rung in the knowledge-ladder then themselves in a particular domain. The caveat is that given the complexity/depth of any domain today the vast majority of the population are not to be trusted in their opinions. You can only trust somewhat the judgement of the "peers" of the "Expert" in that particular domain. Knowledge is gained only through a) Direct Perception, b) Logical Inference and c) Valid/Authentic Testimony and all play a part here.
In my experience, the aspect that delineates an expert is that experts can fix things.<p>Gaining knowledge isn’t particularly difficult. But expertise comes from actually applying that knowledge in the real world. The real world is messy and chaotic.<p>It’s also multidisciplinary. Acquired knowledge tends to be limited to the topic at hand. We find topics we like and learn more about them. But the rough edges where disparate disciplines meet is where expertise grows.
I have basically been an imitator my whole life...being reasonably good at approximating an expert in certain domains but never quite reaching the levels of true expertise--except for maybe one or two things. As Covid showed in which experts could not decide what policy, if any worked, or endless forecasts of recession/crisis that are worse than flipping a coin, the value of expertise in many respects is overrated anyway.<p><i>Think of all the money managers who borrow their talking points from Warren Buffett. They might sound like Buffett, but they don’t know how to invest the way Buffett does. They’re imitators. Charlie Munger once commented: “It’s very hard to tell the difference between a good money manager and someone who just has the patter down.”</i><p>The best ones will not take your money, or there is no easy way to invest (e.g. Renaissance Technologies) . the bad ones are practically begging for clients and spend lots of $ on advertising. Also, performance metrics...
"In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few" (Shunryū Suzuki)<p>Not always bad not to be an expert. And it's fairly rich to start with an example from asset management, which is an industry that habitually mistakes luck for expertise.
> Imitators can’t answer questions at a deeper level. Specific knowledge is earned, not learned, so imitators don’t fully understand the ideas they’re talking about. Their knowledge is shallow. As a result, when you ask about details, first principles, or nonstandard cases, they don’t have good answers.<p>I disagree. Successful imitators are highly skilled at misdirection and will be able to come up with good-sounding answers. Experts on the other hand might not have the best answers ready at hand. What the author is describing is simply an interview, and we all know interviewing is a skill on its own.
I have met many engineers with senior and expert engineer titles.<p>I can count on a single hand the number of ppl I considered experts in their field.<p>Titles are not given based on expertise but how many years of experience you have and how many ppl you know.
The article is conflating buzzword laden hype-cycles with qualitative artifacts.<p>It takes experience to recognize most software is still garbage, but more importantly determine which parts of the garbage heap is useful.<p>The primary problem is the very definition of any unique terminology or product is distorted by the industry itself to fit a marketing niche.<p>After a few years people sound like they had a stroke, and bought a Turbo Encabulator:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag</a>
>Think of all the money managers who borrow their talking points from Warren Buffett. They might sound like Buffett, but they don’t know how to invest the way Buffett does.<p>Bad analogy. There are domains that admit experts e.g. numerical methods for partial differential equations. Investment management is not one of them. There is way too much luck involved and in Buffet like cases, size and reflexivity confound the matters more.
Often, we look for experts in fields that do not admit experts and come away disappointed.
> Imitators can’t answer questions at a deeper level. Specific knowledge is earned, not learned, so imitators don’t fully understand the ideas they’re talking about. Their knowledge is shallow. As a result, when you ask about details, first principles, or nonstandard cases, they don’t have good answers.<p>Uh, or they just don't have answers to things off hand.<p>A college professor who lectures every semester multiple times about something is very good at reproducing knowledge and fielding questions on that knowledge.<p>However, someone whose expertise is largely procedural will have difficulty fielding answers to "deep questions".
This is an effect you see on Reddit a lot. The fitness sub used to have some pretty knowledgeable people in it, but over time it got clogged up with imitators who would just parrot answers from more credible accounts. It's one of the worst side effects of the dopamine rush from fake internet points. I haven't read it in probably a decade for that reason, but that's how it was at the time.
> Real experts have earned their expertise and are excited about trying to share what they know.<p>Depends on a lot of things. Preferably not for free.
It's just an ad?<p>Anyway, doesn't work on me, I'm not afraid of not being able to tell bullshitters from people with experience, and I'm also not afraid of listening to bullshitters.<p>As the Principia Discordia reminds us, "bullshit makes the flowers grow, and that is beautiful".
Good news is, if the imitator is smart enough, they can become experts...<p>(see "Ripley Underground" by Patricia Highsmith for more info...)<p>:)
>> Imitators can’t answer questions at a deeper level
Not sure about others but I feel like most engineers (I know) only learn what they need, are these engineers all imitators? How does one become an expert?
A different way to put it:<p>many people understand the what<p>some understand the how<p>fewer understand the why<p>Or, put in a different way: many people understand the API; some understand the implementation, and fewer understand the constraints that shaped everything.
Related, a long time ago:<p>Are You An Expert? (2009)<p><a href="https://blog.codinghorror.com/are-you-an-expert/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.codinghorror.com/are-you-an-expert/</a>
sounds like every AGI huckster out there vs those who have been in the weeds with ML / NLP since 2010s<p>but yes AGI will be here in 2 years... if only I was an expert and could know this for sure!!! :D
I've heard some professors stop publishing once they receive tenure not wanting to risk losing the aura of being an expert with a low-quality research.
I find it kind of ironic that an article about misperceiving expertise fails to mention the Dunning-Krueger effect[0], especially with passages like:<p>> Imitators don’t know the limits of their expertise. Experts know what they know, and also know what they don’t know. [...] Imitators can’t. They can’t tell when they’re crossing the boundary into things they don’t understand.<p>[0] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect</a>
Nonsense post.<p>If you are not familiar with the area there is no way distinguish experts vs. imitators. In order words, imitators are not stupid: they are just not expert in the field.