What Makes An Expert?

The world – especially the online world is full of experts who have just started to cut their teeth on their subject.

Whether it’s social media, marketing, online business, dance, fitness, or any number of other areas of specialty.  They’re out there and online it’s a harder to know who the real deal is and who the sleazy salesman is.

Now, I won’t lay claim to expert status in more than the number of things that I could count on one hand (it’s probably half of that actually) but I’ve a few words to speak on the subject of expert status and authority.  So you may as well listen in or move on.

So what makes an expert an expert?

Let’s start with the word: expert.

A person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority: a language expert.

You already knew this – if you didn’t, I’m surprised you can read.  But let’s break it apart anyways.

An expert possesses exclusive or privileged skills and knowledge in a particular field.  The possession of this skill and knowledge grants them authority in their field.

It is rarely the skills or knowledge that are so prized by non-experts or new-entrants to a field, rather it is the authority those skills and knowledge provide in the socio-economic context.

Authority means people defer to the expert on matters under their expertise.  This deferment can also mean social privilege, financial reward (i.e. getting paid), and other benefits.

This authority status and the benefits accorded it are what people seek when they label themselves experts.  People will acquire titles, join associations, and seek out opportunities that sound authoritative to reinforce the label of expert. There’s a whole section on being an expert in the Four Hour Workweek that gives examples and methods to acquire public expert status without having invested the time that natural expertise would require.

Is this a bad thing?  The gut reaction – yes.

We recoil from feeling duped by being shown one thing and provided with something else.  That’s what negotiated expert status appears to be – just another slick palmed marketing trick to get us to believe something. In a way, that’s what it is.

But where is it beneficial? When we can provide knowledge and skills to others that don’t possess them.  You don’t need to be in the top 5 or 10% of your field to provide a benefit to the people who have no expertise in your field.

Example:

I build websites for people but I’m not an expert web designer or programmer.  I have a good eye for design, decent programming experience and a lot of technical knowledge that the average person and small business owner doesn’t possess.

This means I can provide something of value to people at a price point that we’re both comfortable with.  Most small business owners and people don’t need a full-scale professionally custom designed website.  They need a functional, easy to manage website that customers can find and use easily.  That’s what I provide.

Where else is it beneficial? To those experts who are good at what they do but bad at being experts.  They don’t know how to brand themselves as experts, market their skills as experts and become the go-to-person in their field.  So, when they have a method to connect their expert skills and knowledge with the public status and authority of expert status, they can provide far more benefit to those who need it.

Now for my favorite part, the etymology, or where the word came from.

Late 14c., from L. expertus, pp. of experiri “to try, test” (see experience). The n. sense of “person wise through experience” existed 15c., reappeared 1825.

The root of expert takes us back to the latin (surprised anyone?) experiri.  Which in short means to try, test, experience, prove.

The course of action to become experts is the path of experimentation. They are explorers, questioning the established assumptions and methods, delving into the corners and niches that hide away from the mainstream of their field.  Combined with the 10,000 hour rule – made popular by writers like Malcolm Gladwell in another one of his best sellers, Outliers – you end up with an expert.

Example:

To those in the lifestyle design niche, you work at becoming an expert at living your life with a set of design parameters in mind.  Your life becomes a series of experiments aimed at testing, trying and in the end experiencing your life in the most meaningful manner to you.

But what tools do you need in those 10,000 hours?

It’s true, we can’t just practice mindlessly or go about experimenting and abandoning things left and right.  We’d have spent 10,000 hours without recorded observations, analysis and development.  What you need is a specific mindset of experimentation.

That mindset requires curiousity and mindfulness.

With only curiousity you neglect the discoveries you unearth. Mindfulness provides the intensity of awareness to observe, analyze, question, and structure what exploration unearths.  Mindfulness is the key to quantifying data, analyzing and following through on breakthroughs.

With only mindfulness you forgo discovery in place of stability and structure. Curiousity provides the inquisitive nature which pokes at the edges, turns things over, asks what is on the other side of the curtain, and wants more.  Curiousity is the key to endless inquiry, questioning and following up on possibility.

An expert is not a collection of skills and knowledge or a collection of titles and awards.

An expert is an individual with a mindset of curiousity and mindfulness which experiments, fails, questions and delves deep into a field over and over again.  It is their collective experiences in experimentation, failure, success that makes them an expert.

  • Thanks.... reminds me of the saying:

    "Good judgment comes from experience.
    Experience comes from bad judgment"
  • I'd be interested on your take about the difference between an expert and a leader; I've seen many people define expert in a way that was more about "proven knowledge" than experimentation; more static than the fluid, evolving way you define an expert.

    I like your definition, btw...
  • Thanks Taylor for giving me another article idea :)
  • Hi Carl.

    I think a relevant point you are partially making here as well is that one person's expert might be another person's amateur resource, but that doesn't make them any less of an expert to the first person. A difference of skill is a large part of what makes one person an expert to another. Each person has their own items to contribute as expertise.

    It is worth trying to become the expert of experts, but is also worth recognizing if you are an expert to some folks along the way.
  • Doubly true Armen.

    Even an amateur resource can sometimes be more of a benefit to a person than a higher level expert. The problem of expertise is occasionally that it is harder to communicate with someone who is not also an expert.
  • kenjicrosland
    Great insights here Carl.

    In truth it only takes a fraction of those 10,000 hours to be able to do 80% of what an expert can do. After that you bump into the law of diminishing returns. It seems like a waste of time just to achieve that extra 20%, when most people don't need what that 20% can provide.
  • Thanks, and yes there is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to any skill set or knowledge base.

    However, that is where you bump into the difference between mastery of a field and skill in a field. The 10,000 hours rule definitely seems to fall closer to mastery than just basic expertise (as we see used so often).
  • kenjicrosland
    I agree with you that 10,000 hours falls closer than mastery, but I think the question we must ask ourselves is whether (in a particular case) mastery is really worth it. If achieving mastery makes for rewarding work then by all means do it, but if it's just so that you can call yourself more skilled than the other guy, it's rather pointless.
  • I think this touches on an important consideration. That being, how important is mastery, and especially serial mastery, in light of humans' limited lifespans?

    If we assume that 10,000 hours can bring us within reach of mastery, we're suggesting a limit to the number of things one can really hope to master. In a 75 year period where we spend a third of our time sleeping, we'll only get about 40 rations of mastery. We get really good at sleeping and eating and walking (and watching TV), leaving us with the opportunity to go deeply into only a handful of activities.

    Honestly, it doesn't leave a lot of room for indecision. If we choose the path of mastery in any one field, we're definitely giving up a lot of playing around in others.
  • This is a great point Andy.

    I think I'll do another piece on the benefits of mastery and the importance of following what we believe in with respect to mastery.
  • It's definitely case dependent, although if it's in the field that you are pursuing actively, I think it'd be a shame to not master it.

    If it's just something you want to be able to do relatively well, then skip the extra time needed to put in, just don't call yourself a master. That's probably one of my greatest peeves; when people proclaim themselves as masters or advanced in a field without really understanding what that means, especially if they still struggle with some of the more fundamental skills.
  • kenjicrosland
    Yeah, you definitely see plenty of self-proclaimed masters out there. Humility seems to be a rare commodity on the internet. As you point out in your article with that web designer bio, however, humility can be worth more than people think.
  • "humility can be worth more than people think."

    I'm going to quote you on this later! Thank you!
  • Hi Carl, this was very good. I do agree with your main points. However, in the information age we are getting so much of our knowledge, not by experience, but by reading and discussing. I guess people are becoming experts in spreading good ideas. Can you become an expert at recognizing good ideas without practicing them?
  • lauraroeder
    This is something that I wonder about as well, especially with the 10,000 hours discussed in the book. In the book he makes all the examples pretty black and white - programming in a certain language, practicing violin. Then there are things like I do, which aren't so clear. I've been on the web creating and participating in community spaces for 13 years. But how many hours were just "messing around", and how many counted towards developing "expertise"? I have no idea. I wasn't doing work clients paid me for, does it "count"? I was just doing it for fun, but Bill Gates was just programming for fun as well.
  • I think you answered your own question.

    "I was just doing it for fun."

    There's an element to developing expertise that I think requires an element of playfulness. It's such a creative and exploratory process that we learn so much more by playing and making the mistakes that occur by approaching it lightly.

    As a dancer my messing around time is where I'm really pushing my boundaries and edges, exploring new options and making the most mistakes in the shortest amount of time. Doing professional work (i.e. performances, teaching, etc.), where I get paid, is often far less inquisitive and rarely pushes boundaries in the same way.
  • I agree that messing around is an important part of real expertise. To be honest, anyone can learn to mimic the expertise of others. If you want to be a parrot, it takes only a very short time to learn the right lines and when they should be spoken.

    As you wrote in the article, experimentation and failure are necessary parts of the equation. I'd say they're much more important than having the "right" answers.
  • Hey Stephen, you can become an expert at recognizing good ideas and spreading them. I actually think that is one of Gladwell's greatest strengths (I actually edited out a sentence from this post that basically said that while he may not be the best expert on the subject, he's the expert who gets the word out.)

    However, I think there is still a differentiation in recognizing good ideas and forwarding them on and being an expert in that knowledge and skillset. Expertise is always gained from the experience of doing.
  • Great post, Carl.

    The word "expert" discourages so many people from doing things that they otherwise might. Instead of asking "Do I have enough knowledge, experience, and attitude to do this," people instead focus on whether they're an expert or not. If we're in a remote area and my leg is broken, I don't care if you're a doctor - I care if you can set a leg.

    Also, the 10k rule is really at play in established fields of knowledge. Early adopters or pioneers in an inchoate field don't necessarily need 10k hours to be experts in that field. Much of the 10k rule is based on comparative judgments about someone's level of knowledge or experience, but it breaks down for obvious reasons.
  • Thank you so much for the kind words Charlie, considering how much I admire your own work (and even more that I discovered you were working a philosophy PhD - philosophy unite!), you always add excellent points.

    There is definitely another side to expertise that you bring up and it's something that I've written about and thought about before. I struggle with it (as in my own example of doing basic websites for people) on occasion but overall if you can offer the services needed to people, then that's a whole other side to things.

    And 10 points for using the word inchoate.
blog comments powered by Disqus