• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The Death of Expertise

 
 
 
Speakpigeon said:
steve_bank said:
Becoming an expert dog walker doesn't involve much competition
Click to expand...

Why not?

In terms of what is meant usually by expertise, it is much more than just regular practice.

Expertise certainly gives you one clear advantage over the non-experts in a competition but the level of competition is irrelevant to levels of expertise people possess except as a possible motivation to become an expert.
EB
Click to expand...

Practice leads to skill' as in a skilled craftsman. The debate is just more semantics. Expert is contextual like most things. The OP refers t0 an apparent decline or lowering of the bar as to what constitutes expertise. The Internet and computer tools have certainly impacted 'expertise'. One can quickly find summaries of history and science and then talk about it.


Wisdom is knowing when not to get tangled in semantic arguments.
 
steve_bank you really missed this one on expertise. Speakpigeon wrote "...but the level of expertise is irrelevant to levels of expertise people possess except as a possible motivation to become an expert."

You're ex-areospace so you should know that expertise is often determined by base attributes rather than practice or any other domain of learning. Some cannot become expert sailors because they have inhibitions to that course of proficiency like severe sea sickness or other balance issues. Golden arms are pilots who attain levels of performance not attainable by most who are pilots.

In other areas some can only attain skills like Rubic's Square solvers by particular combinations of finger dexterity, spacial appreciation, and understanding pattern capability. Others are the only ones to attain pattern recognition expertise who have either geometric capacities or numeric capacities only a few possess. And those have numeric processing capacities rarely recorded. This says nothing of savants, artists, musicians, all of whom possess brain capacities lacking in even the most elite humans.

The brain is not, as Pinker points, out a blank slatem, nor are all persons born equal.

As for expert dog walkers or horse walkers or exercise persons, I'm not capable by either training or capacity to be come an expert among them because I have not the least capacity to either understand or anticipate one of these magnificent beasts. I know they hate me and I grew up with them all around me. I haven't been to a rodeo for 50 years nor have I taken responsibility for a dog since childhood where, then, I failed magnificently.

So even though I may choose to become an expert I cannot do so in many known disciplines. I, and probably you, nave not the capacity for doing so.

So while I agree that expertise by practice and discipline do provide advantage I disagree that motivation is ever a real asset if one has not the capacity.
 
fromderinside said:
Speakpigeon wrote "...but the level of expertise competition is irrelevant to levels of expertise people possess except as a possible motivation to become an expert."
Click to expand...

I would recommend that you used copy & paste to avoid trivial mistakes, especially when quoting me.
EB
 
fromderinside said:
That you should have my eyes or level of competition. Good editing is appreciated from wherever it comes. Still do you see the points being made regardless of my quote failure?
Click to expand...

I would take you point, I guess, that superior cognitive capabilities can make for nonpareil expertise.

Yet, this was not my point. Expertise is a collective outcome. It's a social phenomenon. People who are trained to become experts have to learn the expertise legated to them by previous experts and specialists. It's a costly endeavour too, and a cost that has to be justified by the competitive edge expertise should provide.

So it's definitely more than practice. But it's also not limited to people with exceptionally superior cognitive capabilities. Those will help, obviously, but many experts are run-of-the-mill specialists, only slightly above average by their personal intellectual qualities but not just well but better-trained individuals who, crucially, were able to inherit an expertise already established by their forebears.
EB
 
You just lost me.
EB
 
steve_bank said:
The goal of capitaism is profit.
Click to expand...
sustaining the belief that good people can succeed in a corrupt system through hard work, to get them to work hard for the evil pieces of shit that rip them off.
 
Speakpigeon said:
You just lost me.
EB
Click to expand...
The point is that if only some, enough to provide pathways to future generations, have a suite of genes that together provide the species with a capacity to succeed without more than a few individuals in each likely group. As long as those individuals are able to design and make tools to be fit without yielding to the elements in the rest of the boime that limit reproduction. Our tools today include manipulating the genome itself.

I believe it is true that humans are in a self generating ecological release and that in this release there are likely several competing species outcomes.

It is for others to determine what are those minimums.
 
Ok, good enough for me.

I guess you're emphasising the minimum gene pool necessary for transmitting the ability to develop a certain kind of top-notch expertise whereas I was emphasising the necessary social processes necessary for keeping a somewhat different species of expertise as part of the social fabric and to ensure its transmission.

Different fixations.
EB


Poll on the definition of consciousness, please visit https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12402-Definitions-of-Consciousness-The-Poll
 
Maybe we should be talking in a statistical way like factor analytic trait analysis concentrating on the what is the general trait cluster. How risky would acting on such a analysis be to the probability of our species continuing. A trade between most significant cluster, General, versus its relation to fitness. Methodologically doable. Doubt we could settle on factors.
 
Many theologians simply know the history of various religions. Like a specialized historian.
untermensche said:
Not all areas of expertise are the same thing.

Theologians have a great deal of expertise on what the gods have been doing.

Tom Cruise has an expertise in Scientology.
Click to expand...
 
Playball40 said:
Many theologians simply know the history of various religions. Like a specialized historian.
untermensche said:
Not all areas of expertise are the same thing.

Theologians have a great deal of expertise on what the gods have been doing.

Tom Cruise has an expertise in Scientology.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes, some want to study something serious.

Too bad they are not honest and admit the stories are superstitious nonsense.
 
Folks,

The OP isn't just about religion. Some people are questioning expertise in science.

I recently had a carb service and tune up of my R1 motorcyle. Why the fook would I not research the the best Yamaha techs locally and take it to a guy who knows exactly what he is doing and understands the physics of race engines?

That's what Donald Trump would do.

A.
 
Philos said:
Folks,

The OP isn't just about religion. Some people are questioning expertise in science.

I recently had a carb service and tune up of my R1 motorcyle. Why the fook would I not research the the best Yamaha techs locally and take it to a guy who knows exactly what he is doing and understands the physics of race engines?

That's what Donald Trump would do.

A.
Click to expand...

A motorcycle mechanic can easily prove their expertise.

Any practical expertise can easily be proven.

But people that are experts at bullshitting; priests, lawyers, salesman, some teachers, especially philosophy teachers, may only be experts at bullshitting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom