@islamaltaher TY4RT and compliment of 12 Most Important Unspoken Truths about Experts | 12 Most http://t.co/SGfwd3hj I appreciate it!
12 Most Important Unspoken Truths about Experts
The trigger to ponder what constitutes an expert came to me over ten years ago after meeting several insightful professors at a university. Joking with them, I suggested hiring them as contractors to tutor me. After pausing I commented, “Isn’t it funny? I would receive a better education, but I wouldn’t become degreed because I didn’t go through the university’s program.” At that moment, I first saw credentials as a stamp indicating a grade of meat without making it healthier or tastier. Here’s the deeper point: people often tell us who the experts are without us ever pausing to do our own due diligence.
With that introduction, I present my “12Most” for your thoughtful reading pleasure.
1. Subjectivity determines experts
We subjectively determine experts. Yes, processes exist to manufacture experts, but experts create and run them, and experts are human. Therefore, the processes represent a collective subjectivity. Furthermore, many experts arise outside of these processes because many people call them experts.
2. Experts are extremely defensive of their expertise
Once people have no value for an expert’s domain of expertise, the expert has no value. Therefore, experts will tend to defend their turfs. As happened with the debate over peanut allergies, one side will tend to get all the press and funding. Experts defend their domains by forming groups and developing their own terminology. It’s their wall against the barbarians who might threaten or dilute their expertise.
3. Experts form mutual-adoration unions
People often become experts because other experts call them experts, so it helps to become part of a group that refers to each member as an expert. This occurs subliminally when experts praise and footnote each other publicly often subconsciously hoping a return favor. This is a political process analogous to a circular reference in Excel, or a City in the Sky, in which there is no stable, objective point of reference.
4. The scientific method is more akin to a magic trick than a religious rite
The scientific method is many experts’ magic wand. Their power derives from the reverence we have for it when they say “researched” or “scientifically proven.” However, the method is very subjective especially when applied to the study of people because people have to define the problem and the controls. The method is also very limited. It cannot even prove something as simple as good leadership begets good business. It cannot prove love exists or why we like music. Yet, experts will proclaim the sanctity of this method because without it, they’re just someone holding a stick.
5. Money warps the “Expertise-Industrial Complex”
Many thrive financially on what experts produce; so, it strongly influences what experts study and what appears in journals, programs and other media. As a result, attention-grabbing outcomes receive preference while any peer review countering these findings receives the brush off. Just as money has influenced the news business, it has infiltrated expertise to produce a Expertise-Industrial Complex.
6. Experts don’t need to be innovative or creative
Nothing says experts need to be original. Many of them, especially those who are outcomes of a credentialed process, have become experts in thinking the way senior experts want them to think. Moreover, as experts become more established, they trend toward consensus. If they’re an outlier and shown wrong, other experts might not view them as experts anymore.
7. Experts don’t need real-life experiences to be experts
The scientific method, in the name of “objectivity,” encourages many experts to be detached observers of the very field in which they claim expertise. They don’t need to be actual practitioners in a real-life setting.
8. Popularity does not make an expert
Junk food is very popular, but that doesn’t make it nutritional. Just as there is junk food, there is junk knowledge. People buy diet fads promising quick and easy weight loss; people buy idea fads promising quick and easy business solutions. Sometimes, experts don’t need good ideas, just good packaging.
9. Television doesn’t make an expert
If an idiot called you a genius, would you feel complimented? Once upon a time, people referred to television as the idiot box. Television wants viewers, lots of them. People who are on television are experts at getting on television, period. There is a strategy; ask any public relations expert.
10. Books don’t make an expert
Books are getting shorter every day, but the font is getting bigger and more spacious all the time. Consequently, the number of words and the number of ideas per dollar continues to shrink. Readers love it: they can boast about reading many books. Experts love it: they can write and sell more books with less material.
11. Experts tend to be afraid of laypersons’ questions
Why do many parents fear their children’s questions? Experts fear layperson’s questions for similar reasons: they can come from an unexpected direction exposing a potential hole in the domain of expertise.
12. The best way to become an expert is to begin by calling yourself one
In this way, you’ll better learn what an expert is. You’ll learn to think for yourself rather than rely upon others to tell you who the experts are.
After all this, you might be asking yourself, “What is an expert?” It’s a unique, very personal problem-solving exercise. You might not find experts on television, in a book or on a most popular list, but I guarantee that you’ll find them very helpful.
Featured image courtesy of Pete Prodoehl licensed via creative commons.
Mike Lehr
Mike Lehr is an IT business owner and Director of Talent Development for ProSource Solutions, LLC. Since Mike originates a wide range of content as a speaker, trainer, writer and thought provocateur, he is also Owner and President of Omega Z Advisors, an affiliated firm focused on the development of intellectual property. Mike is one of only a handful of business professionals in the country regularly applying intuitive methods to help people become better influencers and problem solvers.
75 comments
@HumanAtom Thank you DC for tweeting this: 12 Most Important Unspoken Truths about Experts | http:\/\/t.co\/SGfAKDid >> I appreciate it!
1 Like
Just ran across this, and I must say it is spot on. I have worked in sales for 20+ years, and whenever I am referred to as an "expert" I always correct that to be "specialist". I don't know everything in my particular field of work, but I do focus on it. I learn new things almost daily, by applying my knowledge in real life situations and observing the outcome. In my lexicon, that makes me a specialist and not an expert.
I have shunned the label of expert ever since I heard it defined as follows: "Expert: X is an unknown value, and spurt is an escape of fluid under pressure".
Thank you @Jerrye for stopping by and commenting. I appreciate it. I'm pleased you found this post "spot on." Good perspective on the difference between specialist and expert. Again, thank you.
@12most Something that people on twitter should keep in mind when going to others for too much advice.
@mikelehroza Apprecite ! TY! Am in Twebchat now, but will look as soon as finish. :)
@tamalechica Unspoken truths about so called experts: http://t.co/fVpAVqj (from Guy Kawasaki on my G+ Stream) > as author of post TY4 tweet
@wintersunllc Yes. A member of the TDA contacted me & said the woman they hired was a social media expert "worth ten times what they paid"
@ThunderPig my tax dollars hard at work supporting... well certainly not local business
.@wintersunllc The town and county focus on stupid tourism is EXACTLY why 5/6ths of my classmates had to leave town in order to find work.
.@wintersunllc I know that TDA means Tourism Development Authority. I think it is as a illegitimate an organization as the Planning Board.
.@wintersunllc At least they gave the video work to a local guy. (I think they should be focused more on industry than tourism)
@wintersunllc You'll love this: a guy I know has just sold a book he has written about how to use Google Plus...he has only posted 9x on G+
@wintersunllc I'm right there with you. I would have dearly loved to have gotten that meeting on video.
@wintersunllc I'm going to have to accelerate my plans of covering the other local governing boards in addition to the county & town boards.
@elleinthecity Yes, it shows a bit of expertise with just a dash of self-effacement. I use "wonk" it liberally.
1 Like
You should read up on what concrete techniques make up the scientific method. The easiest starting point is this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method The point? It's techniques are designed to make it as objective as humanly possible. To claim it is subjective suggests you're ignorant about what it means, or want to confuse your readers about it.
That aside, what the scientific method *is* and how it's *used* shouldn't be confused as you do. What you're describing might as well be someone who only claims to be using the scientific method, but who isn't really doing so. That is no reason to cast doubt on the method itself, as you have done.
Makes the rest of the list a bit suspect as well.
Thank you, @unwesen , for the link. I've used it myself when others needed for more specifics on the scientific method.
Yes, you're right, the "techniques are designed to make it as objective as humanly possible." That doesn't mean it IS objective or that it's immune to subjectivity. I can certainly agree with your characterization there.
For example, try running this experiment: use the scientific method to scientifically prove that it IS objective. Remember though, our definition of objectivity that we will need in our hypothesis will be subjective.
More importantly though, I believe we need to look at the method pragmatically: people use it. That's analogous to a sterile instrument rubbing up against a human; it's no longer sterile. There is a difference between how Wikipedia defines the method on our screens and how it actually plays out in reality.
In return of the favor for the link, here are four articles you might want to read. They indicate a growing concern with the scientific method and its use especially in studying people. I apologize some of these are pay to view, so I don't have links.
Jonah Lehrer, "The Truth Wears Off," The New Yorker [magazine], p 52-57, December 13, 2010. >> He asks the question: Is there something wrong with the Scientific Method. In it he asserts "Many results that are rigorously proved and accepted start shrinking in later studies."
Jerome Groopman, "The Peanut Puzzle," The New Yorker, p 26-30, February 7,2011.>>He asks the question: Could conventional wisdom on children and allergies be wrong? This is an excellent article showing the challenge of new research trying to counter outcomes from previous research on the same things.
David H. Freedman, "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science," The Atlantic, p76-84, November 2010: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/ >> "Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science."
"The Science of Science," The Economist, p 86-87, April 30, 2011 http://www.economist.com/node/18618025 has this important quote:
". . . despite academia’s pretensions to objectivity, it is as subject to political considerations as any area of human endeavour. Many authors cite colleagues, bosses and mentors out of courtesy or supplication rather than because such citations are strictly required."
I welcome a continued dialogue on this. Your comment did an excellent job of allowing me to elaborate on some important points. It also allowed me to bring to bear some of the research I've done on this method over the years that have caused me to realize that our culture almost treats it as a divinity: we assume that if people follow the method it cannot yield incorrect outcomes. This is putting it on the same level as a god.
I appreciate you visiting this post. Hope to see you again. Take care and thank you.
1 Like
@MikeLehrOZA What I get from this is that if one person misuses a tool (like the scientific method) we regard the tool as suspect, rather than laying the blame on the person who misused it. I suspect (or hope) the attack was directed at sloppy practitioners rather than the method itself.
"our culture almost treats it as a divinity: we assume that if people follow the method it cannot yield incorrect outcomes. This is putting it on the same level as a god." This seems like projection to me: I don't know that anyone regards science as infallible or that the scientific method is incapable of error. But many of us consider one of the best tools we have.
People may accept scientific results without question but blaming science is like blaming your razor when you cut yourself shaving. So is your issue with scientific method or with people's faith in it? Re-read your claim (" The scientific method is more akin to a magic trick than a religious rite").
@MikeLehrOZA We're not that far apart, just looking at it from different sides. We agree that the scientific method is a tool that, like any tool, can be misused or whose results can be accepted without criticism. That's different from claiming ascribing magical powers to it and I reiterate that it's up to the consumer of that information or findings to review them and see if they apply, just as one would examine the work of your carpenter, either directly or by asking others, before engaging their service.
As for trial and error with observation, as soon as you make a choice of test conditions or materials, you are using the scientific method: that choice is itself part of the hypothesis. I can't imagine any circumstance where someone using trial and error wouldn't want to narrow their choices. And to do that, you have to make some decisions about the testing parameters, whether you're testing the durability of a light bulb filament or the number of simultaneous web queries your shiny new service can answer before falling over.
The blame or perception that science is magic is the fault of an uncritical audience, not the tool or it's practitioners. While there are unscrupulous hucksters in any field, there is no shortage of fools either. And that's where the fault or blame rests.
@paulbeard Thank you, Paul, for posting here. My apologies, my reply is much longer than I intended, but after a day, I could not find a way to more simply address your valid points.
To answer your question, the problem is more with people’s faith in SM than the method itself; however, it really depends upon how you define the scope of SM’s use as a tool. If you restrict SM to the domain of physical and perhaps natural sciences, then, yes, most of my arguments and those in the citations above would drop off. However, if you include the scope to include such things as medicine, human physiology, social sciences and psychology, then SM becomes more of a problem itself. In between these ends, you have the study of animals. More and more research is showing that wild animals have personalities. The importance here, if true, is that controls in SM, depending upon the experiment, will need to account for this variation, which they haven’t in the past.
As an overarching argument, SM is more subjective than most believe. Subjectivity enters into defining the hypothesis, identifying the controls, running the experiment (depending upon the type), analyzing results and even in peer review. Combine these inherent subjectivities of SM with the inherent subjectivities of studying humans in some of the fields mentioned above and you get a very subjective event. It’s one thing to isolate pure calcium in a test tube and quite another to isolate a pure “extrovert” in a room. The latter can’t be done; yet, many psychological experiments operate under the assumption that something close to that can be done.
Another aspect of SM that is extremely concerning is peer review. It’s purported to be an important quality control step; however, because there is no time, money or recognition in it, many published findings go unchallenged. Or, if they do, the review doesn't get published to the same degree as the originating study.
Now, let’s come back to your tool analogy and apply it to my comments related to treating SM as a divinity. My proof that SM touches something at the core of many people’s belief structure is the response we’ve gotten to this post here and on G+. Let’s face it. If all I was doing was saying a hammer was a lousy tool, I extremely doubt we would get the kind of response that we have. No, SM and everything it stands for touches people on a much deeper level even to the point that those people, in order to defend their beliefs, must try to discredit the source by characterizing it as negatively as they possibly can rather than trying to deal with the arguments in some intelligent way as you have.
To wrap up and connect this back to the post and experts, is the point that often a demarcation between an “expert” and a non-expert is whether or not SM is practiced and perfected in the expert’s work. In fact, you often can’t receive a doctorate from a university if you don’t. Now, again, returning to your analogy of a tool, this is like saying that just because someone has a hammer and uses it well, he is a carpenter. However, when marketing products and services, saying something was "scientifically proven" is to attribute to it a level of quality that might not be warranted. This is where my magic wand analogy comes into play because experts can play on this tendency to create money and prestige for themselves.
Still, it’s true that SM is a good tool, but let’s remember it is only a tool. As an example of another good testing method, I find trial and err with observation (TE/O) a much better and more versatile testing method. Even children can use it.
Again, thank you for visiting and for your consideration. I appreciate it.
Making "all or none" statements often indicates prejucide and usually contains a bit of dishonesty. Some "experts" fit the above statements, but not all
1 Like
I'm sorry @lpolkie . I don't see how your characterization of my comments fits. I welcome some specific examples to address.
For example in #11, I write, "Experts TEND to be afraid of laypersons’ questions." I didn't say "always."
In #2, I write, ". . . experts will TEND to defend their turfs." Again, I made no "all or none" reference such as "always."
In #3, I write, "People OFTEN become experts because other experts call them experts." Again, I didn't write "always."
In #8, I write, "SOMETIMES, experts don’t need good ideas, just good packaging." Again, not "always."
In #7, I write, "Experts don’t need real-life experiences to be experts." I didn't write "experts don't HAVE real-life experiences."
Of course, I did write in #1, ". . . experts are human." I will admit that is absolutist, but until I run into an expert who isn't human, I'll stand by my statement. Of course, my cat is pretty much an expert at catching rabbits, so I might have to rethink that.
Anyway, the point is that I welcome a dialogue that allows me to address specific examples that are causing you to feel as you do, but until then I will stand by my comments as the truth.
I'm also sorry if you interpreted my remarks to mean ALL experts. I reviewed my writing, and I couldn't find where I said that directly or implied it. If you wish to point out a specific comment or two that caused you to feel that way, I welcome learning about it.
In the meantime, thank you for your comment. It allowed me to elaborate on some important points. I appreciate that. Thank you for visiting. I appreciate it.
@tedrubin @impactresults would u leave a comment on www.iamconvicted.com? & I'll leave comment on your site
@tedrubin thanks for jumping in Ted - you are a cornerstone to the community :) #12most is thankful for you!
Like I always say: I am not an expert and not a guru, just a guy with opinions who is not afraid to voice them... and experiment, experiment, experiment to get it right.
Yes, Ted @TedRubin , I agree. Trial and err is the most effective learning method around especially if you combine it with a keen ability to observe others and to learn from them. Thank you for the comment and or visiting! I appreciate it. Keep your opinions coming!
Thanks for putting this list together, Mike. I think it's loaded with apt observations, particularly in its assessment of how the 'expert industry' protects itself and indoctrinates members. Competence, value, skill -- these will always have value -- but the idea of the 'expert' has been infected by marketing to the point where the relationship between being an expert and having actual expertise has become tenuous at best.
There's a mantra I've repeated many times: "You can be a professional. And you can be an expert in what you’re a professional in. But be suspicious of anyone who has become a ‘professional expert.’"
Thank you @dkoch2 for the compliment. You're right. Marketing has infected the concept of expert. I do feel though it has a positive side: it makes us work harder to determine for ourselves who the true experts are. I'll have to remember your mantra! Thank you for visiting this site and my post. I appreciate it.
@sascha_p or, you could say, anyone who describes themselves as a social media expert is the biggest MORON ;)
@sylviebarak i can only sign that. By the way, i am a Google+ guru now. Sounds fresh and i need to take advantage of the hype ;)
@angelamaiers Hope you are enjoying Wyoming...it sounds amazing!!! Rachel has enjoyed it so much already and it just started!
@Taml17 Hi Tami- we wish you were here! Rachel is AMAZING! Between the both of us- we will make here crazy for Twitter too!
@angelamaiers Are you coming to the ISTE Leadership Forum in Chicago this Fall? If so, let's make sure to meet up there!
@angelamaiers Sadly, no ISTE for me this year. Will for sure be in San Diego. Here is the link to the leader… (cont) http://deck.ly/~zDsNu
@angelamaiers Would love to be there! Am following updates. YES-We'll get Rachel crazy 4 Twitter..she started here-now you continue pushing!
Thanks for the interesting post. I agree with your premise. The film "What the bleep do we know" http://www.whatthebleep.com/ illustrates your point. The film is part interview/documentary interwoven with the story of a woman. The individuals that are interviewed are all presented as "experts" but no titles or credentials are assigned. This allows you to judge their expertise and arguements without assigning any particular status to the "expert" at the end you learn how they were (or were not) trained..... I enjoyed the experience of the film more because of this approach. Would like to see more of that in my professional world... Thanks again and be well
@SP@IDEASEVOLVING.COM Thank you SP. I'll have to see that documentary. I appreciate you stopping by to comment.
Trackbacks
Let’s be social!
Categories
12 Most Recommends
[...] I have been getting the sense more and more these days that there tends to be less and less of a premium placed on someone who is an expert. Coincidentally, I ran across a blog Post by a Mike Lehr, called the “12 Most Important Unspoken Truths about Experts”. His Blog is called “The 12 Most…”, and you’ll find quite a few posts where he packages things into nice little bundles of a dozen. The link to his post is http://12most.com/2011/07/11/12-important-unspoken-truths-experts/ [...]
[...] been amazed every since at the virality that Google+ can bring under the right circumstances. http://12most.com/2011/07/11/12-important-unspoken-truths-experts/ 8. 12 Most Desirable People to Follow on Google+ by Peggy FitzpatrickShortly after the launch of [...]
[...] http://12most.com/2011/07/11/12-important-unspoken-truths-experts/ [...]
[...] current research material. If they don’t want to do this, they only need to find an unimaginative expert who has already done this for them. However, bettering a best practice requires much thought and [...]