Rethinking Professionalism: The Meta-Expert

I hope I don't come off as pedantic but, presuming I understand you properly, I wouldn't describe these people as meta-experts. Unless I'm mistake, the prefix meta- means, from Wikipedia, "about (its own category)". If this is right, a meta-expert would be an expert about experts, or an expert on experts.<p>Thus, it's my opinion that calling these people meta-experts could imply something different than what you intend, particularly to people who don't read the article fully, and if it takes off as an Interblag "term", it could cause some confusion (although it could be that I'm just crazy).<p>Perhaps I could interest you in neo-expert?

"In my own experience, I’ve had more negative than positive transactions with experts and professionals that advertise themselves as such."<p>Great point. The terms expert and guru (maybe professional too) are a lot like nicknames. I can call you those things, but if you call yourself that, I can't help but think the opposite.

It's easy to build up an expert reputation and then depend on it. It's easy to become your group/company expert on such-and-such topic, and then have people defer to you even as your skills deteriorate. What's hard is to actually retain a real level of expertise. You have to continually challenge yourself, question assumptions, and test the limits of what you know.<p>If you find yourself justifying your answers with "because I'm an expert" on a regular basis, it may be time to reevaluate.

Perhaps the old distinction between the wise man and the pedant is what you are after.