Hubbry Logo
ExpertExpertMain
Open search
Expert
Community hub
Expert
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Expert
Expert
Expert
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Adolf von Becker: The Art Expert

An expert is somebody who has a broad and deep understanding and competence in terms of knowledge, skill and experience through practice and education in a particular field or area of study. Informally, an expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be believed, by virtue of credentials, training, education, profession, publication or experience, to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion on that topic. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound thinker distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment.

In specific fields, the definition of expert is well established by consensus and therefore it is not always necessary for individuals to have a professional or academic qualification for them to be accepted as an expert. In this respect, a shepherd with fifty years of experience tending flocks would be widely recognized as having complete expertise in the use and training of sheep dogs and the care of sheep.

Research in this area attempts to understand the relation between expert knowledge, skills and personal characteristics and exceptional performance. Some researchers have investigated the cognitive structures and processes of experts. The fundamental aim of this research is to describe what it is that experts know and how they use their knowledge to achieve performance that most people assume requires extreme or extraordinary ability. Studies have investigated the factors that enable experts to be fast and accurate.[1]

Expertise

[edit]

Expertise characteristics, skills and knowledge of a person (that is, expert) or of a system, which distinguish experts from novices and less experienced people. In many domains there are objective measures of performance capable of distinguishing experts from novices: expert chess players will almost always win games against recreational chess players; expert medical specialists are more likely to diagnose a disease correctly; etc.

The word expertise is used to refer also to expert determination, where an expert is invited to decide a disputed issue. The decision may be binding or advisory, according to the agreement between the parties in dispute.

Academic views

[edit]

There are two academic approaches to the understanding and study of expertise. The first understands expertise as an emergent property of communities of practice. In this view expertise is socially constructed; tools for thinking and scripts for action are jointly constructed within social groups enabling that group jointly to define and acquire expertise in some domain.

In the second view, expertise is a characteristic of individuals and is a consequence of the human capacity for extensive adaptation to physical and social environments. Many accounts of the development of expertise emphasize that it comes about through long periods of deliberate practice. In many domains of expertise estimates of 10 years' experience[2] deliberate practice are common. Recent research on expertise emphasizes the nurture side of the nature and nurture argument.[2] Some factors not fitting the nature-nurture dichotomy are biological but not genetic, such as starting age, handedness, and season of birth.[3][4][5]

In the field of education there is a potential "expert blind spot" (see also Dunning–Kruger effect) in newly practicing educators who are experts in their content area. This is based on the "expert blind spot hypothesis" researched by Mitchell Nathan and Andrew Petrosino.[6] Newly practicing educators with advanced subject-area expertise of an educational content area tend to use the formalities and analysis methods of their particular area of expertise as a major guiding factor of student instruction and knowledge development, rather than being guided by student learning and developmental needs that are prevalent among novice learners.

The blind spot metaphor refers to the physiological blind spot in human vision in which perceptions of surroundings and circumstances are strongly impacted by their expectations. Beginning practicing educators tend to overlook the importance of novice levels of prior knowledge and other factors involved in adjusting and adapting pedagogy for learner understanding. This expert blind spot is in part due to an assumption that novices' cognitive schemata are less elaborate, interconnected, and accessible than experts' and that their pedagogical reasoning skills are less well developed.[7] Essential knowledge of subject matter for practicing educators consists of overlapping knowledge domains: subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content matter.[8] Pedagogical content matter consists of an understanding of how to represent certain concepts in ways appropriate to the learner contexts, including abilities and interests. The expert blind spot is a pedagogical phenomenon that is typically overcome through educators' experience with instructing learners over time.[9][10]

Historical views

[edit]

In line with the socially constructed view of expertise, expertise can also be understood as a form of power; that is, experts have the ability to influence others as a result of their defined social status. By a similar token, a fear of experts can arise from fear of an intellectual elite's power. In earlier periods of history, simply being able to read made one part of an intellectual elite. The introduction of the printing press in Europe during the fifteenth century and the diffusion of printed matter contributed to higher literacy rates and wider access to the once-rarefied knowledge of academia. The subsequent spread of education and learning changed society, and initiated an era of widespread education whose elite would now instead be those who produced the written content itself for consumption, in education and all other spheres.[citation needed]

Plato's "Noble Lie", concerns expertise. Plato did not believe most people were clever enough to look after their own and society's best interest, so the few clever people of the world needed to lead the rest of the flock. Therefore, the idea was born that only the elite should know the truth in its complete form and the rulers, Plato said, must tell the people of the city "the noble lie" to keep them passive and content, without the risk of upheaval and unrest.[11]

In contemporary society, doctors and scientists, for example, are considered to be experts in that they hold a body of dominant knowledge that is, on the whole, inaccessible to the layman.[12] However, this inaccessibility and perhaps even mystery that surrounds expertise does not cause the layman to disregard the opinion of the experts on account of the unknown. Instead, the complete opposite occurs whereby members of the public believe in and highly value the opinion of medical professionals or of scientific discoveries,[12] despite not understanding it.

[edit]

A number of computational models have been developed in cognitive science to explain the development from novice to expert. In particular, Herbert A. Simon and Kevin Gilmartin proposed a model of learning in chess called MAPP (Memory-Aided Pattern Recognizer).[13] Based on simulations, they estimated that about 50,000 chunks (units of memory) are necessary to become an expert, and hence the many years needed to reach this level. More recently, the CHREST model (Chunk Hierarchy and REtrieval STructures) has simulated in detail a number of phenomena in chess expertise (eye movements, performance in a variety of memory tasks, development from novice to expert) and in other domains.[14][15]

An important feature of expert performance seems to be the way in which experts are able to rapidly retrieve complex configurations of information from long-term memory. They recognize situations because they have meaning. It is perhaps this central concern with meaning and how it attaches to situations which provides an important link between the individual and social approaches to the development of expertise. Work on "Skilled Memory and Expertise" by Anders Ericsson and James J. Staszewski confronts the paradox of expertise and claims that people not only acquire content knowledge as they practice cognitive skills, they also develop mechanisms that enable them to use a large and familiar knowledge base efficiently.[1]

Work on expert systems (computer software designed to provide an answer to a problem, or clarify uncertainties where normally one or more human experts would need to be consulted) typically is grounded on the premise that expertise is based on acquired repertoires of rules and frameworks for decision making which can be elicited as the basis for computer supported judgment and decision-making. However, there is increasing evidence that expertise does not work in this fashion. Rather, experts recognize situations based on experience of many prior situations. They are in consequence able to make rapid decisions in complex and dynamic situations.

In a critique of the expert systems literature, Dreyfus & Dreyfus suggest:[16]

If one asks an expert for the rules he or she is using, one will, in effect, force the expert to regress to the level of a beginner and state the rules learned in school. Thus, instead of using rules he or she no longer remembers, as the knowledge engineers suppose, the expert is forced to remember rules he or she no longer uses. ... No amount of rules and facts can capture the knowledge an expert has when he or she has stored experience of the actual outcomes of tens of thousands of situations.

Skilled memory theory

[edit]

The role of long-term memory in the skilled memory effect was first articulated by Chase and Simon in their classic studies of chess expertise. They asserted that organized patterns of information stored in long-term memory (chunks) mediated experts' rapid encoding and superior retention. Their study revealed that all subjects retrieved about the same number of chunks, but the size of the chunks varied with subjects' prior experience. Experts' chunks contained more individual pieces than those of novices. This research did not investigate how experts find, distinguish, and retrieve the right chunks from the vast number they hold without a lengthy search of long-term memory.

Skilled memory enables experts to rapidly encode, store, and retrieve information within the domain of their expertise and thereby circumvent the capacity limitations that typically constrain novice performance. For example, it explains experts' ability to recall large amounts of material displayed for only brief study intervals, provided that the material comes from their domain of expertise. When unfamiliar material (not from their domain of expertise) is presented to experts, their recall is no better than that of novices.

The first principle of skilled memory, the meaningful encoding principle, states that experts exploit prior knowledge to durably encode information needed to perform a familiar task successfully. Experts form more elaborate and accessible memory representations than novices. The elaborate semantic memory network creates meaningful memory codes that create multiple potential cues and avenues for retrieval.

The second principle, the retrieval structure principle states that experts develop memory mechanisms called retrieval structures to facilitate the retrieval of information stored in long-term memory. These mechanisms operate in a fashion consistent with the meaningful encoding principle to provide cues that can later be regenerated to retrieve the stored information efficiently without a lengthy search.

The third principle, the speed up principle states that long-term memory encoding and retrieval operations speed up with practice, so that their speed and accuracy approach the speed and accuracy of short-term memory storage and retrieval.

Examples of skilled memory research described in the Ericsson and Stasewski study include:[1]

  • a waiter who can accurately remember up to 20 complete dinner orders in an actual restaurant setting by using mnemonic strategy, patterns, and spatial relations (position of the person ordering). At the time of recall all items of a category (e.g., all salad dressings, then all meat temperatures, then all steak types, then all starch type) would be recalled in clockwise for all customers.
  • a running enthusiast who grouped together short random sequences of digits and encoded the groups in terms of their meaning as running times, dates, and ages. He was thus able to recall over 84% of all digit groups presented in a session totaling 200–300 digits. His expertise was limited to digits; when a switch from digits to letters of the alphabet was made he exhibited no transfer—his memory span dropped back to about six consonants.
  • math enthusiasts who can in less than 25 seconds mentally solve 2 × 5 digit multiplication problems (e.g., 23 × 48,856) that have been presented orally by the researcher.

In problem solving

[edit]

Much of the research regarding expertise involves the studies of how experts and novices differ in solving problems.[17] Mathematics[18] and physics[19] are common domains for these studies.

One of the most cited works in this area examines how experts (PhD students in physics) and novices (undergraduate students that completed one semester of mechanics) categorize and represent physics problems. They found that novices sort problems into categories based upon surface features (e.g., keywords in the problem statement or visual configurations of the objects depicted). Experts, however, categorize problems based upon their deep structures (i.e., the main physics principle used to solve the problem).[20]

Their findings also suggest that while the schemas of both novices and experts are activated by the same features of a problem statement, the experts' schemas contain more procedural knowledge which aid in determining which principle to apply, and novices' schemas contain mostly declarative knowledge which do not aid in determining methods for solution.[20]

Germain's scale

[edit]

Relative to a specific field, an expert has:

  • Specific education, training, and knowledge
  • Required qualifications
  • Ability to assess importance in work-related situations
  • Capability to improve themselves
  • Intuition
  • Self-assurance and confidence in their knowledge

Marie-Line Germain developed a psychometric measure of perception of employee expertise called the Generalized Expertise Measure.[21] She defined a behavioral dimension in experts, in addition to the dimensions suggested by Swanson and Holton.[22] Her 16-item scale contains objective expertise items and subjective expertise items. Objective items were named Evidence-Based items. Subjective items (the remaining 11 items from the measure below) were named Self-Enhancement items because of their behavioral component.[21]

  • This person has knowledge specific to a field of work.
  • This person shows they have the education necessary to be an expert in the field.
  • This person has the qualifications required to be an expert in the field.
  • This person has been trained in their area of expertise.
  • This person is ambitious about their work in the company.
  • This person can assess whether a work-related situation is important or not.
  • This person is capable of improving themselves.
  • This person is charismatic.
  • This person can deduce things from work-related situations easily.
  • This person is intuitive in the job.
  • This person is able to judge what things are important in their job.
  • This person has the drive to become what they are capable of becoming in their field.
  • This person is self-assured.
  • This person has self-confidence.
  • This person is outgoing.

Rhetoric

[edit]

Scholars in rhetoric have also turned their attention to the concept of the expert. Considered an appeal to ethos or "the personal character of the speaker",[23] established expertise allows a speaker to make statements regarding special topics of which the audience may be ignorant. In other words, the expert enjoys the deference of the audience's judgment and can appeal to authority where a non-expert cannot.

In The Rhetoric of Expertise, E. Johanna Hartelius defines two basic modes of expertise: autonomous and attributed expertise. While an autonomous expert can "possess expert knowledge without recognition from other people," attributed expertise is "a performance that may or may not indicate genuine knowledge." With these two categories, Hartelius isolates the rhetorical problems faced by experts: just as someone with autonomous expertise may not possess the skill to persuade people to hold their points of view, someone with merely attributed expertise may be persuasive but lack the actual knowledge pertaining to a given subject. The problem faced by audiences follows from the problem facing experts: when faced with competing claims of expertise, what resources do non-experts have to evaluate claims put before them?[24]

Dialogic expertise

[edit]

Hartelius and other scholars have also noted the challenges that projects such as Wikipedia pose to how experts have traditionally constructed their authority. In "Wikipedia and the Emergence of Dialogic Expertise", she highlights Wikipedia as an example of the "dialogic expertise" made possible by collaborative digital spaces. Predicated upon the notion that "truth emerges from dialogue", Wikipedia challenges traditional expertise both because anyone can edit it and because no single person, regardless of their credentials, can end a discussion by fiat. In other words, the community, rather than single individuals, direct the course of discussion. The production of knowledge, then, as a process of dialogue and argumentation, becomes an inherently rhetorical activity.[25]

Hartelius calls attention to two competing norm systems of expertise: “network norms of dialogic collaboration” and “deferential norms of socially sanctioned professionalism”; Wikipedia being evidence of the first.[26] Drawing on a Bakhtinian framework, Hartelius posits that Wikipedia is an example of an epistemic network that is driven by the view that individuals' ideas clash with one another so as to generate expertise collaboratively.[26] Hartelius compares Wikipedia's methodology of open-ended discussions of topics to that of Bakhtin's theory of speech communication, where genuine dialogue is considered a live event, which is continuously open to new additions and participants.[26] Hartelius acknowledges that knowledge, experience, training, skill, and qualification are important dimensions of expertise but posits that the concept is more complex than sociologists and psychologists suggest.[26] Arguing that expertise is rhetorical, then, Hartelius explains that expertise "is not simply about one person's skills being different from another's. It is also fundamentally contingent on a struggle for ownership and legitimacy."[26] Effective communication is an inherent element in expertise in the same style as knowledge is. Rather than leaving each other out, substance and communicative style are complementary.[26] Hartelius further suggests that Wikipedia's dialogic construction of expertise illustrates both the instrumental and the constitutive dimensions of rhetoric; instrumentally as it challenges traditional encyclopedias and constitutively as a function of its knowledge production.[26] Going over the historical development of the encyclopedic project, Hartelius argues that changes in traditional encyclopedias have led to changes in traditional expertise. Wikipedia's use of hyperlinks to connect one topic to another depends on, and develops, electronic interactivity meaning that Wikipedia's way of knowing is dialogic.[26] Dialogic expertise then, emerges from multiple interactions between utterances within the discourse community.[26] The ongoing dialogue between contributors on Wikipedia not only results in the emergence of truth; it also explicates the topics one can be an expert of. As Hartelius explains, "the very act of presenting information about topics that are not included in traditional encyclopedias is a construction of new expertise."[26] While Wikipedia insists that contributors must only publish preexisting knowledge, the dynamics behind dialogic expertise creates new information nonetheless. Knowledge production is created as a function of dialogue.[26] According to Hartelius, dialogic expertise has emerged on Wikipedia not only because of its interactive structure but also because of the site's hortative discourse which is not found in traditional encyclopedias.[26] By Wikipedia's hortative discourse, Hartelius means various encouragements to edit certain topics and instructions on how to do so that appear on the site.[26] One further reason to the emergence of dialogic expertise on Wikipedia is the site's community pages, which function as a techne; explicating Wikipedia's expert methodology.[26]

Networked expertise

[edit]
See also: Wisdom of the crowd

Building on Hartelius, Damien Pfister developed the concept of "networked expertise". Noting that Wikipedia employs a "many to many" rather than a "one to one" model of communication, he notes how expertise likewise shifts to become a quality of a group rather than an individual. With the information traditionally associated with individual experts now stored within a text produced by a collective, knowing about something is less important than knowing how to find something. As he puts it, "With the internet, the historical power of subject matter expertise is eroded: the archival nature of the Web means that what and how to information is readily available." The rhetorical authority previously afforded to subject matter expertise, then, is given to those with the procedural knowledge of how to find information called for by a situation.[27]

Contrasts and comparisons

[edit]

Associated terms

[edit]

An expert differs from the specialist in that a specialist has to be able to solve a problem and an expert has to know its solution. The opposite of an expert is generally known as a layperson, while someone who occupies a middle grade of understanding is generally known as a technician and often employed to assist experts. A person may well be an expert in one field and a layperson in many other fields. The concepts of experts and expertise are debated within the field of epistemology under the general heading of expert knowledge. In contrast, the opposite of a specialist would be a generalist or polymath.

The term is widely used informally, with people being described as 'experts' in order to bolster the relative value of their opinion, when no objective criteria for their expertise is available. The term crank is likewise used to disparage opinions. Academic elitism arises when experts become convinced that only their opinion is useful, sometimes on matters beyond their personal expertise.

In contrast to an expert, a novice (known colloquially as a newbie or 'greenhorn') is any person that is new to any science or field of study or activity or social cause and who is undergoing training in order to meet normal requirements of being regarded a mature and equal participant.

"Expert" is also being mistakenly interchanged with the term "authority" in new media. An expert can be an authority if through relationships to people and technology, that expert is allowed to control access to his expertise. However, a person who merely wields authority is not by right an expert. In new media, users are being misled by the term "authority". Many sites and search engines such as Google and Technorati use the term "authority" to denote the link value and traffic to a particular topic. However, this authority only measures populist information. It in no way assures that the author of that site or blog is an expert.

An expert is not to be confused with a professional. A professional is someone who gets paid to do something. An amateur is the opposite of a professional, not the opposite of an expert.

Developmental characteristics

[edit]

Some characteristics of the development of an expert have been found to include

  • A characterization of this practice as "deliberate practice", which forces the practitioner to come up with new ways to encourage and enable themselves to reach new levels of performance[28]
  • An early phase of learning which is characterized by enjoyment, excitement, and participation without outcome-related goals.[29]
  • The ability to rearrange or construct a higher dimension of creativity. Due to such familiarity or advanced knowledge experts can develop more abstract perspectives of their concepts or performances.[28]

Use in literature

[edit]

Mark Twain defined an expert as "an ordinary fellow from another town".[30] Will Rogers described an expert as "A man fifty miles from home with a briefcase." Danish scientist and Nobel laureate Niels Bohr defined an expert as "A person that has made every possible mistake within his or her field."[31] Canadian writer Malcolm Gladwell describes expertise as a matter of practicing the correct way for a total of around 10,000 hours.

See also

[edit]
  • Perceptual learning – Process of learning better perception skills
  • Consultant – Professional who provides advice in their specific field of expertise
  • Polymath – Gifted person with broad knowledge

General

[edit]

Criticism

[edit]
  • Academic bias – Bias of scholars allowing their beliefs to shape their research
  • Anti-intellectualism – Hostility to and mistrust of education, philosophy, art, literature, and science
  • Denialism – Denial of basic facts and concepts that are accepted by the scientific consensus
  • The Death of Expertise – 2017 nonfiction book by Tom Nichols
  • Gibson's law – Every PhD has an equal and opposite PhD
  • Politicization of science – Use of science for political purposes
  • Rational skepticism – Questioning of claims lacking empirical evidence

Psychology

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Expert

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An is a with comprehensive and authoritative or in a particular area, not possessed by most individuals, typically derived from extensive , deliberate practice, and enabling superior in that domain. Expertise is characterized by elite levels of task , including intuitive and automatic , strategic flexibility, efficient problem-solving through , and well-organized mental structures that facilitate rapid access to relevant information. Despite these attributes, expertise remains domain-specific, with limited transferability to unrelated fields, and experts' judgments are vulnerable to cognitive biases, overconfidence in predictions, and inconsistencies that challenge their reliability in complex or novel scenarios.

Definition and Conceptual Foundations

Core Definition of Expertise

Expertise refers to the attainment of consistently superior performance in a specific domain through the integration of extensive domain-specific , advanced skills, and prolonged deliberate practice, distinguishing experts from novices and competent performers. This superior performance manifests as reliable accuracy, efficiency, and adaptability in representative tasks, often under varying conditions, rather than mere accumulation of facts or basic proficiency. At its core, expertise encompasses both (what is known) and (how to apply it), enabling rapid problem-solving, , and strategic decision-making that exceed average capabilities. Unlike general or innate talent alone, which provide a foundation but insufficient for peak achievement, expertise demands thousands of hours of focused effort, as evidenced by studies across fields like chess, , and , where top performers log 10,000 or more hours of practice. This process refines cognitive structures, such as chunking information into meaningful units, facilitating quicker retrieval and inference. Expertise is inherently domain-specific, meaning proficiency in one area, such as or performance, does not reliably transfer to unrelated domains without analogous practice. relies on objective indicators like rates, speed, and predictive in validated tasks, rather than subjective claims or credentials, underscoring the need for empirical validation over institutional endorsement. While some definitions emphasize "" or "peak" levels built on talent, causal evidence points to practice as the primary driver, with talent accelerating but not guaranteeing outcomes.

Distinctions from Competence, Knowledge, and Authority

Expertise differs from in that it encompasses not only propositional facts but also procedural abilities and tacit understandings honed through domain-specific practice, enabling superior adaptation to novel challenges rather than rote application. While involves declarative recall verifiable through tests, expertise manifests in reproducible high-level performance under uncertainty, as seen in chess grandmasters' beyond memorized openings. In contrast to competence, which denotes adequate task fulfillment meeting predefined standards through conscious rule-following, expertise emerges at advanced stages of skill acquisition where intuitive holistic perception supplants deliberate analysis. The Dreyfus model delineates competence as a midpoint involving prioritized amid , but experts operate with fluid, context-sensitive responses derived from thousands of hours of deliberate practice, yielding and absent in mere competence. Empirical studies in fields like confirm experts diagnose faster and more accurately by integrating experiential patterns, unlike competent practitioners reliant on checklists. Expertise must be distinguished from , as the latter stems from positional or institutional designation rather than verified superior capability, allowing non-experts to wield influence without corresponding proficiency. Epistemic authority presumes reliability in testimony based on expertise, yet formal authority—such as in bureaucratic or political roles—often decouples from it, as evidenced by appointees lacking domain training who override specialists, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes. While expert power arises from recognized skills enabling sound judgment, authority can derive from coercive or referent bases independent of performance evidence. This separation underscores the risk of conflating the two, where deference to authority supplants evaluation of expertise.

Historical Evolution

Ancient and Pre-Modern Perspectives

In , (c. 428–348 BCE) conceptualized political expertise as specialized of eternal Forms, particularly the , which philosopher-kings must possess to govern justly, analogous to a pilot's technical mastery of . This , distinct from mere opinion (), was acquired through rigorous dialectical training and philosophical ascent, enabling rulers to align the state's divisions—guardians, auxiliaries, and producers—with cosmic order. (384–322 BCE), critiquing 's idealism, classified expertise into intellectual virtues in (c. 350 BCE): as productive skill reliant on rules and experience (e.g., or ), as demonstrable of unchanging principles, and (practical wisdom) as deliberative expertise in contingent ethical matters, cultivated via rather than innate talent alone. These distinctions emphasized expertise's causal foundations in observation, reasoning, and repeated action, influencing subsequent views on skilled judgment over abstract theory. In ancient , (551–479 BCE) framed expertise as moral and administrative proficiency embodied by the (exemplary person), achieved through lifelong self-cultivation (xiushen), study of classics, and ritual practice to internalize virtues like ren (humaneness) and li (propriety). This relational expertise prioritized harmonious governance over technical specialization, with knowledge disseminated via mentorship and later formalized in merit-based selection, as seen in the system's origins tracing to (206 BCE–220 CE) evaluations of Confucian texts for bureaucratic roles. Unlike Greek emphasis on theoretical universals, Confucian views rooted expertise in empirical social dynamics and ethical habit, where failure stemmed from inadequate personal rectification rather than epistemic gaps. Pre-modern European perspectives, particularly in medieval craft traditions, operationalized expertise through -regulated , where novices served 7–10 years under masters to acquire tacit skills via imitation and supervised practice, progressing to status upon demonstrating competence and finally to mastery after producing a chef d'œuvre. enforced quality via monopolies on training and entry, fostering transferable knowledge independent of kinship, as evidenced in 13th–15th century records from cities like and , where expertise was validated by collective scrutiny rather than individual theory. This practical model contrasted scholastic theology's reliance on authoritative texts and disputation, as in Thomas Aquinas's (1225–1274) synthesis of Aristotelian phronesis with divine revelation, yet both underscored expertise's dependence on institutionalized verification over self-proclamation.

Modern Psychological and Philosophical Developments

In the mid-20th century, amid the , psychological research on expertise shifted toward empirical investigations of cognitive processes distinguishing experts from novices, particularly in domains like chess and . Adriaan de Groot's earlier work on chess , extended post-1950, highlighted experts' rapid evaluation of positions through selective search rather than exhaustive computation. A landmark study by William G. Chase and in 1973 demonstrated that chess masters reconstruct board positions from by perceiving larger "chunks" of interrelated pieces—averaging 10 pieces per chunk versus 2 for novices—facilitating recall rates up to 90% for legal positions but dropping sharply for random ones, underscoring domain-specific over general capacity. By the 1980s and 1990s, research emphasized skill acquisition mechanisms, with K. Anders Ericsson's studies revealing that expert performance arises from extended deliberate practice rather than innate talent alone. In their 1993 analysis of violin students at Berlin's Academy of Music, Ericsson, Ralf Krampe, and Clemens Tesch-Römer found that the most accomplished performers had logged approximately 7,000 more hours of deliberate practice—intensive, feedback-driven sessions targeting weaknesses—by age 18 than less elite peers, correlating strongly with performance ratings while mere experience did not. This framework, tested across domains like sports and typing, posited that expertise requires sustained effort to adapt cognitive structures, challenging romanticized views of and influencing training protocols, though later replications noted variability by field. Philosophically, 20th-century developments in grappled with expertise amid growing scientific complexity, foregrounding social dimensions over solitary justification. John Hardwig's 1985 essay "Epistemic Dependence" contended that modern knowledge production necessitates rational reliance on experts' , as laypersons cannot independently verify claims in fields like ; for instance, believing in theory requires deferring to physicists' collaborative evidence, rendering individualistic insufficient and epistemologies overly heroic. This sparked social 's focus on expert reliability, with arguing in subsequent works that deference should hinge on indicators like predictive accuracy and inter-expert agreement, while acknowledging risks from biases or —evident in historical cases like failures. Later critiques, including those on expert disagreement in policy domains, highlighted the need for meta-criteria like transparency in methods to mitigate systemic errors, though philosophical consensus remains elusive due to domain variances.

Psychological and Cognitive Models

Deliberate Practice and Skill Acquisition

refers to a structured form of training activity explicitly designed to improve the current level of performance in a domain, characterized by specific goals, full attention and concentration, immediate feedback, and engagement with tasks that exceed the individual's comfort zone. This approach, formalized by psychologist in his 1993 analysis of expert performers, emphasizes prolonged, effortful efforts to refine skills rather than mere repetition or experience accumulation. In skill acquisition, deliberate practice fosters the development of superior mental representations—internalized models of performance that enable experts to anticipate outcomes, monitor errors, and adapt strategies efficiently. Unlike naive practice, which involves unstructured repetition of familiar tasks without targeted improvement or feedback, deliberate practice requires purposeful engagement with challenging elements of the , often under guidance from a coach or who identifies weaknesses and provides corrective input. Naive practice, common among amateurs, yields as it reinforces existing habits without pushing adaptive changes, whereas deliberate practice drives measurable progress by focusing on proximal zones of development—tasks just beyond current proficiency. Empirical distinctions arise from studies showing that accumulated hours of deliberate practice correlate more strongly with elite performance than total experience; for instance, in violinists at a music , those destined for international careers had engaged in approximately 7,000 to of deliberate practice by age 20, compared to 2,000 to 5,000 hours for less accomplished peers. Evidence supporting deliberate practice's role in skill acquisition spans domains like , , and . In athletics, a 2014 meta-analysis of 20 studies found deliberate practice accounted for about 18% of variance in sports performance, with stronger effects in individual sports requiring fine , though less explanatory power in team-based or tactical games where factors like coordination with others intervene. Medical expertise studies, such as those on radiologists and surgeons, demonstrate that deliberate with feedback reduces error rates in diagnostic and procedural tasks by enhancing and procedural fluency, outperforming passive observation or routine clinical exposure. However, critiques highlight limitations: a 2014 review argued deliberate practice explains only 1-3% of variance in and performance after controlling for other factors, suggesting innate predispositions like capacity or perceptual acuity moderate its efficacy. Cognitively, deliberate practice contributes to expertise by automating sub-skills and expanding effective through chunking—grouping information into larger, meaningful units—allowing experts to process complex stimuli faster and with fewer errors. Longitudinal data from chess masters indicate that deliberate analysis of thousands of games, with evaluation against master-level moves, cultivates intuitive , where experts evaluate board positions in seconds using retrieved representations built over 10+ years of targeted practice. While motivational barriers and access to quality feedback constrain its application, deliberate practice remains a causal mechanism for surpassing average proficiency, as evidenced by interventions where novices assigned deliberate regimens outperform controls in benchmarks after equivalent total hours. This framework underscores that expertise emerges not from innate talent alone but from sustained, adaptive that recalibrates cognitive and motor systems toward peak efficiency.

Cognitive Mechanisms and Pattern Recognition

Experts exhibit superior pattern recognition through cognitive mechanisms that integrate perceptual input with vast stores of domain-specific knowledge in , enabling rapid identification of familiar configurations and anticipation of outcomes. This process, often termed or schema activation, allows experts to bypass exhaustive analysis by retrieving pre-encoded patterns formed via repeated exposure and refinement. Unlike novices, who rely on slow, rule-based processing, experts employ chunking, where disparate elements are grouped into meaningful units—such as piece configurations in chess or anatomical anomalies in —facilitating quicker encoding and retrieval. Empirical studies demonstrate that this mechanism stems from adaptive myelination and synaptic strengthening in relevant neural circuits, honed by targeted practice rather than innate alone. The chunking hypothesis, originally proposed by Chase and Simon in their analysis of chess masters, posits that experts develop hierarchies of chunks ranging from simple (e.g., a king-pawn pair) to complex (e.g., tactical motifs spanning the board), with masters recalling up to 50,000 such units compared to novices' fewer than 1,000. Verification comes from recall experiments where experts accurately reconstruct realistic positions (e.g., 80-90% accuracy for grandmasters versus 30% for intermediates) but falter on randomized boards, underscoring dependence over raw capacity. Later replications, such as and Simon's study, refined this by showing chunk sizes averaging 7-10 pieces for masters, with recognition times under 1 second for familiar setups, linking directly to superior move selection via associative cues. These findings extend beyond chess to fields like , where expert diagnosticians identify patterns 20-30% faster through analogous perceptual expertise. Deliberate practice plays a causal role in building these mechanisms, as Ericsson's framework describes: sustained, feedback-driven engagement with challenging variations encodes patterns into a functional "long-term working memory," distinct from passive repetition. For instance, in music or sports, experts discriminate subtle variations (e.g., pitch microtonality or opponent feints) via differentiated schemas, with revealing enhanced activation in the and prefrontal areas during tasks. This domain-specificity implies limitations—experts excel within practiced bounds but transfer poorly without analogous practice—challenging broader claims of generalizable "expert " without evidentiary support. Overall, these mechanisms underscore expertise as an emergent property of accumulated, effortful abstraction, not mere accumulation of declarative facts.

Empirical Evidence from Laboratory Studies

One of the foundational laboratory demonstrations of expert comes from Chase and Simon's 1973 study on chess perception, where master-level players recalled an average of 23 pieces from valid mid-game positions after a 5-second exposure, compared to 8 pieces for novices, while both groups recalled only 5-6 pieces from random (invalid) configurations. This disparity was attributed to experts' use of perceptual chunks—meaningful groupings of 3-5 pieces based on familiar board patterns—allowing efficient encoding into , as evidenced by eye-tracking data showing experts fixating on fewer squares but perceiving larger structures. The study involved controlled presentations of positions on physical boards, with recall measured by verbal reconstruction, isolating domain-specific perceptual mechanisms from general capacity. Subsequent laboratory replications and extensions refined this chunking model. In Gobet and Simon's 1998 experiments, grandmasters and masters exposed to valid chess positions for 5 seconds recalled up to 24 pieces accurately, outperforming intermediate players, but showed minimal advantage (around 7-8 pieces) on random boards; however, when recalling multiple superimposed valid positions, experts integrated templates—larger, hierarchically organized chunks—enabling recall of novel configurations beyond simple aggregation of isolated chunks. These findings, derived from computerized position presentations and precise reconstruction protocols, supported an evolved chunking theory where experts access approximately 7±2 chunks in , akin to general limits but populated with domain-relevant units estimated at tens of thousands accumulated via practice. A 2017 meta-analysis of 41 laboratory studies across domains (including , , and ) confirmed experts' superior immediate recall for domain-structured material (Hedges' g = 0.70), with a smaller but significant edge even for random arrangements mimicking domain elements (g = 0.26), suggesting contributions from both specialized and enhanced basic perceptual-motor encoding. For instance, electronic engineers recalled more random circuit diagrams than novices, implying pre-existing micro-chunks facilitate initial grouping. Limitations include —transfer to unrelated random material (e.g., digits) shows no expert advantage—and variability in random stimuli validity, as overly disrupted configurations may exceed even experts' pattern-detection thresholds. Laboratory investigations into perceptual speed further substantiate cognitive models. Experts in fields like detect anomalies in X-rays faster and with fewer fixations, as shown in controlled eye-tracking paradigms where professionals identified lung nodules in simulated images within 1-2 seconds versus novices' 5+ seconds, relying on holistic rather than serial feature analysis. These effects diminish under time pressure or scrambled displays, underscoring reliance on learned schemas rather than innate acuity. Overall, such evidence from controlled settings highlights expertise as mediated by domain-attuned perceptual and mnemonic processes, though debates persist on whether chunking fully accounts for phenomena like rapid problem-solving without additional executive mechanisms.

Acquisition and Developmental Stages

Progression from Novice to Expert

The progression from novice to expert in skill acquisition is commonly described by staged models that outline cognitive and behavioral shifts driven by accumulated experience. One influential framework is the five-stage model developed by brothers Stuart E. Dreyfus and Hubert L. Dreyfus, originally derived from analyses of domains such as mastery and aircraft piloting, where learners transition from rigid rule-following to fluid, intuitive performance. This model emphasizes a gradual reduction in analytical decomposition of tasks, replaced by as expertise deepens, supported by observations that experts store vast situational repertoires—such as approximately 100,000 board positions for grandmaster players—enabling rapid, context-sensitive responses. In the novice stage, individuals rely on context-free rules provided by instruction, applying them analytically without regard for situational nuances; for instance, a driver might shift gears strictly at 10 mph regardless of road conditions, leading to detached, error-prone execution due to the absence of intuitive judgment. Progression to the advanced beginner occurs with initial experience, where learners recognize recurring situational aspects (e.g., engine sounds signaling issues) and cope with minor variations using experiential maxims, though remains largely rule-bound and analytic. At the competent level, performers select and implement plans with awareness of long-term priorities, feeling emotional responsibility for outcomes; this involves deliberate reasoning to prioritize elements, as seen in competent clinicians weighing guidelines against limited experience. The proficient stage marks a shift toward intuitive of salient features and goals, with decisions guided by past holistic experiences rather than step-by-step analysis; performers here anticipate needs fluidly but may still analytically review actions post hoc. Finally, experts operate with seamless , directly grasping what actions fit the situation without decomposing it into rules or plans, fully immersed yet detached in execution; this is evidenced in fields like , where expert physicians diagnose intuitively from nuanced cues accumulated over years. Empirical applications, such as in and medical training adapted from the model by in 1984, validate these transitions through longitudinal observations of performance improvements tied to experiential volume, though critics note potential oversimplification in assuming universal at the expert level without broader cognitive validations. Alternative models, like Fitts and Posner's 1967 three-stage theory for —cognitive (rule memorization with high errors), associative (refinement through feedback), and autonomous (automaticity with minimal conscious effort)—complement the Dreyfus framework in physical domains but apply less directly to abstract expertise requiring perceptual . Across domains, progression demands thousands of hours of domain-specific practice, with studies confirming non-linear advances where early stages emphasize error reduction and later ones foster adaptive flexibility.

Factors Influencing Development: Practice vs. Talent

The debate over whether expertise develops primarily through extensive practice or innate talent has persisted in , with empirical studies revealing that both factors contribute, though their relative influence varies by domain and performance level. Anders Ericsson's framework of deliberate practice posits that superior performance arises from prolonged, goal-oriented training under feedback, typically spanning a or more, rather than fixed innate abilities. This view draws from retrospective analyses, such as violinists at a music academy, where top performers accumulated approximately of deliberate practice by age 20, compared to 8,000 hours for less accomplished peers, suggesting practice duration as a key differentiator. However, meta-analytic evidence challenges the sufficiency of deliberate practice alone. A 2014 meta-analysis by , Hambrick, and Oswald, synthesizing 88 studies across domains, found deliberate practice accounted for only 26% of performance variance in games (e.g., chess), 21% in music, 18% in , 4% in , and less than 1% in professions, indicating substantial unexplained variance attributable to other factors like cognitive aptitudes. Follow-up domain-specific analyses, such as in , showed deliberate practice explaining just 1% of variance among elite competitors, underscoring limits in predicting top-tier outcomes from practice volume. Ericsson critiqued these findings for underestimating deliberate practice quality or conflating it with mere experience, yet subsequent reviews affirm that individual differences in starting abilities, such as capacity, predict expertise gains even after controlling for practice hours. Genetic and innate factors further elucidate talent's role, with heritability estimates for domain-relevant traits ranging from moderate to high. Twin studies indicate genetic influences explain 42% of variance in music-related abilities on average, while —often foundational to expertise in cognitive domains—shows heritability rising from 20% in infancy to 80% in adulthood. A prediction of pure practice theories, that diminishes with accumulated practice, lacks consistent support; for instance, genetic effects on musical performance persisted despite extensive training in longitudinal samples. These findings align with causal models where innate predispositions set learning efficiency and ceilings, amplified by practice: individuals with higher baseline aptitudes acquire skills faster and sustain longer, enabling more effective deliberate practice. Domain-specific interactions highlight nuances; in structured fields like chess or , practice dominates early stages but talent differentiates elites, whereas in professions like , accumulated experience often correlates weakly with outcomes due to irreducible individual variability. Overall, while deliberate practice is necessary for expertise beyond novice levels, empirical data refute its exclusivity, with innate talent—rooted in heritable traits—accounting for residual variance and enabling exceptional trajectories, as evidenced by consistent meta-analytic residuals exceeding 70% in most domains.

Measurement and Assessment

Methods for Identifying and Validating Expertise

Performance-based assessments represent the most reliable method for identifying expertise, as they directly measure superior reproducible performance on domain-specific tasks under standardized conditions. These assessments evaluate individuals' ability to achieve outcomes that exceed those of non-experts, such as solving complex problems faster or with higher accuracy, often using metrics like error rates or efficiency scores derived from controlled experiments. For instance, in chess, expertise is validated through Elo ratings based on tournament results, where top players consistently outperform others in head-to-head matches. In medical diagnostics, exams test and decision-making against benchmarks established by historical performance data. Quantifying deliberate practice offers an indirect validation approach, focusing on the cumulative hours of effortful, goal-oriented training under feedback, as proposed by K. Anders in his 1993 framework. 's studies across domains like music and sports found that experts typically accumulate or more hours of such practice, correlating with superior skill acquisition beyond mere experience. Validation involves retrospective interviews or logs to distinguish deliberate practice—characterized by specific goals, immediate feedback, and concentration—from routine repetition, though retrospective self-reports can inflate estimates due to recall biases. Empirical critiques, such as those reviewing 's model, note that while practice duration predicts variance in performance (e.g., explaining 18-26% in music proficiency), innate factors like capacity account for additional variance unexplained by practice alone. Peer evaluation methods, including nominations or review processes, provide social validation but are prone to limitations such as biases and domain-specific echo chambers. In academia, peer-reviewed publications serve as proxies, yet studies show fails to detect flaws consistently, with agreement rates among reviewers as low as 20-30% on manuscript quality. Triangulated approaches mitigate this by combining peer input with self-validation and performance feedback loops, as in expert profile systems where automated is cross-checked against demonstrated outputs. For controversial claims, multiple independent peer assessments or prediction tournaments—where accuracy is tracked over time, as in forecasts achieving 30% better calibration than intelligence analysts—offer stronger validation than single opinions. Other domain-tailored methods include tests, where expertise is inferred from accuracy against base rates; for example, weather forecasters are validated by comparing their probabilistic predictions to observed outcomes over thousands of events. Composite indices, such as those weighting performance speed, accuracy, and adaptability, further refine identification, though no universal metric exists due to expertise's domain-specificity. Proxies like years of experience or credentials correlate weakly (r < 0.3 in many fields) and should be subordinated to , as prolonged exposure without adaptation yields minimal gains. Overall, validation demands reproducible superiority under scrutiny, prioritizing causal links between interventions and outcomes over institutional endorsements potentially skewed by .

Limitations in Quantitative and Qualitative Measures

Quantitative measures of expertise, such as standardized performance tests or accumulated hours of deliberate practice, often fail to fully capture domain-specific superior performance due to their reliance on decontextualized or proxy indicators that do not replicate real-world conditions. For instance, laboratory studies quantifying cognitive processing speed or accuracy in tasks like chess may overlook adaptive strategies developed in high-stakes environments, where , injuries, or situational variability influence outcomes. These metrics also assume statistical validity and substantive meaningfulness, yet challenges arise in demonstrating that they meaningfully reflect expertise rather than mere correlations with general abilities. In the deliberate practice framework, quantitative assessments based on self-reported practice hours—pioneered by et al. in studies of musicians and athletes—have faced criticism for overestimating explanatory power. Meta-analyses reveal that deliberate practice accounts for only 12-26% of variance in performance across domains like , , sports, and professions, with effects diminishing in non-isolated skills, indicating unmeasured factors such as innate predispositions or environmental influences. Retrospective reporting of practice introduces recall biases, and categorical measures (e.g., elite selection) conflate outcomes with inputs, limiting about expertise acquisition. Qualitative measures, including expert interviews, peer evaluations, or observational analyses, suffer from subjectivity and inter-assessor disagreement, as evaluators hold divergent beliefs about performance criteria without standardized benchmarks. In fields like medicine or interviewing, qualitative assessments of decision-making reveal communication gaps, where experts' resists articulation, leading to disparities in perceived competence. Analytical challenges compound this, with risks of , inconsistent categorization of behaviors, and overload from unstructured data, reducing reliability compared to quantitative rigor. Integrating both approaches exposes broader limitations: quantitative methods risk by prioritizing measurable outputs over holistic proficiency, while qualitative ones lack replicability, often yielding inconclusive validations of expertise. These issues are evident in , where lenient environments or weak feedback loops cause even validated experts to underperform, underscoring the need for hybrid criteria tied to verifiable, superior outcomes rather than isolated metrics.

Expert Performance Across Domains

Problem-Solving and Decision-Making

Experts demonstrate superior problem-solving capabilities through rapid and the organization of domain-specific into conceptual chunks, enabling them to identify relevant features and categorize problems more effectively than novices. In contrast, novices often rely on surface-level attributes and fragmented , leading to slower and less accurate solutions. Empirical studies across fields like physics and confirm that experts spend more time initially analyzing problems holistically before proceeding, whereas novices jump into computation prematurely. A key mechanism in expert is the recognition-primed decision (RPD) model, which posits that experienced performers assess situations by matching cues to familiar patterns from memory, then mentally simulate plausible actions without exhaustive option comparison. This process, validated in naturalistic settings such as firefighting and military operations, allows quick, effective choices under time pressure by leveraging cues like environmental indicators or tactical configurations. Unlike analytical models assuming trade-off evaluation, RPD emphasizes situation assessment fused with , where experts reject implausible courses if simulations reveal flaws. In chess, grandmasters exhibit this through heuristics like the "take-the-first" strategy, generating and selecting initial viable moves based on board patterns, often outperforming slower deliberation in tactical scenarios. diagnosticians similarly use pattern-based intuition for rapid , drawing on vast case repertoires to prioritize hypotheses, though they shift to deliberate verification for ambiguous presentations. These domain-specific adaptations arise from extended deliberate practice, which constructs mediating mental representations refined over thousands of hours, as evidenced by reproducible superior outcomes in controlled tasks. Despite these advantages, expert problem-solving remains bounded by ; transfer to novel contexts requires adaptive , which not all experts possess equally. Studies show experts detect relevant information faster on familiar boards or cases but may overlook anomalies outside their . Overall, underscores that expertise enhances efficiency and accuracy via perceptual and cognitive shortcuts honed by practice, rather than innate general .

Applications in High-Stakes Fields

In high-stakes fields where errors can result in or , such as emergency response, , and , expert performance hinges on rapid situation assessment and action selection rather than analytical optimization. Gary Klein's (RPD) model, derived from field studies of firefighters facing dynamic, uncertain conditions, illustrates how experts match incoming cues to mental models built from experience, mentally simulating plausible actions before committing. Firefighters, for instance, typically evaluate 1-2 options per incident, rejecting incompatible ones via simulation rather than exhaustive comparison, enabling decisions in under 10 seconds amid incomplete information. This approach contrasts with novice tendencies toward slower, rule-based deliberation, highlighting expertise's role in compressing decision cycles under pressure. In medicine, surgical experts leverage perceptual expertise akin to pilots, recognizing tissue patterns and anomalies instantaneously to adapt procedures, as evidenced by comparisons between naval aviators and surgeons trained for high-consequence environments. Deliberate performance in simulators—emphasizing feedback on real-time errors—has been shown to elevate novice surgeons toward expert-level procedural fluency, with studies indicating that mental rehearsal from athletics and aviation enhances precision under fatigue or complications. For example, expert surgeons outperform novices in laparoscopic tasks by integrating haptic and visual cues into fluid sequences, reducing operative time by up to 30% in controlled trials, though transfer to live high-stakes cases requires validation beyond simulation. Aviation exemplifies expertise's mitigation of systemic risks, where pilots' of deliberate practice yield intuitive responses to failures, such as the 2009 "Miracle on the Hudson" where Captain Sullenberger's and of ditching options saved all aboard. Longitudinal assessments of military pilots reveal sustained cognitive performance tied to recurrent simulator training, countering skill decay observed after 6-12 months without practice. In military command, RPD extends to tactical decisions, with experts in domains like operations relying on experiential cues for prioritization, outperforming analytical models in fluid combat scenarios per naturalistic studies. These applications underscore that while innate talent influences entry, sustained, feedback-driven practice remains causal for peak reliability in life-critical contexts.

Societal and Institutional Role

Rhetoric of Expert Authority

The rhetoric of expert authority encompasses the persuasive strategies through which individuals or institutions assert specialized knowledge to influence discourse, policy, and . Rhetorical theorist E. Johanna Hartelius defines expertise as a dynamic construct negotiated within specific situations, shaped by participants' credentials, audience expectations, and contextual constraints rather than fixed attributes. This approach emphasizes —the appeal to —as central, where experts deploy , institutional affiliations, and peer consensus to establish legitimacy. In domains like and , rhetorical appeals to expertise often manifest through claims of superior judgment, as seen in where models and data are presented alongside the forecaster's pedigree to preempt scrutiny. Hartelius analyzes such rhetoric in historical narratives, where experts frame interpretations as authoritative truths, marginalizing alternative views lacking similar backing. Legitimate uses align with evidence-based consensus in bounded fields, such as medical diagnostics, but devolve into fallacy when substitutes for reasoning, exemplified by the argumentum ad verecundiam, where irrelevant experts endorse claims without domain relevance. Critiques highlight misuse in suppressing dissent, as in the sociobiology debates of the 1970s-1980s, where biologist rhetorically defended genetic explanations of behavior by invoking empirical rigor and scientific authority against ideological objections from humanities scholars, revealing tensions between disciplinary expertise and broader interpretive claims. In , such rhetoric can prioritize credentialed endorsement over causal evidence, fostering overconfidence in projections like models or economic interventions, where institutional biases—evident in academia's documented left-leaning skew—affect source selection and amplify aligned experts while sidelining outliers. This dynamic underscores the need for transparency in methods and data, as unexamined appeals erode discernment between warranted deference and rhetorical overreach.

Collaborative and Networked Forms of Expertise

Collaborative expertise emerges when multiple domain specialists integrate their through structured interaction, often yielding outcomes superior to solitary efforts in tackling multifaceted challenges. Empirical studies on demonstrate that groups achieve higher task performance—such as in novel problem-solving or —when factors like balanced participation, diverse cognitive abilities, and social sensitivity are present, with a "c factor" accounting for up to 50% of variance across diverse activities in experiments involving 192 teams of varying sizes. This form contrasts with individualistic expertise by emphasizing synthesis over isolated analysis, as seen in medical contexts where interdisciplinary panels aggregate inputs to refine diagnoses; a of 22 studies found collective processes in healthcare enhance accuracy by mitigating individual oversights, though outcomes depend on group composition and facilitation to avoid dominance by singular voices. The exemplifies structured collaborative expertise, originating from efforts in the 1950s to forecast technological trends amid uncertainties. It employs iterative, anonymous rounds of expert questionnaires followed by statistical feedback on group responses, converging toward consensus without direct confrontation that could foster or pressure; applications in , , and healthcare have validated its utility, with meta-analyses showing improved forecast reliability over unstructured group discussions, as experts revise estimates based on values and interquartile ranges from panels of 10-50 specialists. Despite strengths in aggregating dispersed knowledge, the method's effectiveness hinges on participant selection—favoring verifiable domain depth over credentials alone—and can falter if initial panels lack heterogeneity, potentially entrenching errors through iterative averaging rather than causal scrutiny. Networked forms extend collaboration beyond tight-knit teams to distributed, often asynchronous connections enabled by digital platforms, harnessing dispersed expertise for scalable innovation. In development, global networks of contributors—without central hierarchy—have engineered resilient systems; for instance, surveys of networking professionals indicate 92% of organizations view open-source contributions as pivotal for agility and security, with projects aggregating incremental expert inputs to outperform proprietary alternatives in adaptability. Scientific research networks similarly pool expertise via platforms facilitating remote collaboration, as in initiatives where shared repositories and virtual forums accelerate knowledge dissemination, though success requires mechanisms to filter low-quality inputs amid scale. These structures amplify collective output by leveraging modularity—experts contribute specialized modules integrated by others—but risk fragmentation or amplified errors if coordination fails, underscoring the need for robust verification protocols over mere aggregation. Contemporary accounts of collective expertise increasingly emphasize that high level performance in many domains arises from hybrid constellations of humans and technologies rather than from individual specialists alone. In areas such as climate modeling, high frequency trading, or large scale epidemiology, expert judgments are generated through interactions between domain specialists, statistical models, databases, and software infrastructures that filter, visualize, and prioritize information. Some theorists describe these constellations as socio-technical expert systems: ensembles in which no single participant grasps all relevant details, but the configuration as a whole produces reliable guidance that stakeholders treat as authoritative. This perspective extends earlier work on and group intelligence by highlighting the role of digital tools, data pipelines, and institutional platforms in structuring how expert knowledge is produced, coordinated, and applied.

Criticisms and Fallibilities

Cognitive Biases and Overconfidence

Experts exhibit cognitive biases akin to those observed in laypersons, including overconfidence, , and anchoring, which can undermine even in specialized domains. Overconfidence manifests as excessive reliance on one's judgments, leading to inflated estimates of predictive accuracy or control over outcomes. Empirical studies document this bias across professions, where subjective confidence intervals systematically exceed objective error rates, particularly in environments with sparse feedback or high . In political forecasting, Philip Tetlock's of 284 experts producing over 80,000 predictions from 1984 to 2003 revealed that accuracy levels approximated random chance for long-term geopolitical events, yet participants maintained unwarranted certainty, with calibration curves showing pronounced overconfidence—experts assigned 80-90% probability to outcomes that materialized only 60-70% of the time. This pattern held across ideological "hedgehogs" (those with singular worldviews) more than adaptable "foxes," attributing errors to domain complexity and illusory rather than raw incompetence. Economic forecasters display similar overprecision; analysis of the Survey of Professional Forecasters data from 1968 to 2020 found respondents claiming 53% confidence in their point estimates, but actual correctness rates averaged 23%, with biases persisting amid historical data availability. Overconfidence correlates with low base rates of success in volatile fields, exacerbating risks in or contexts. The , a related , prompts experts to overestimate personal agency in systems, as seen in strategic domains where feedback loops are delayed or ambiguous. This fosters , with professionals in , , and assigning undue weight to controllable variables, ignoring irreducible . Experimental confirms overconfidence endures even after repeated exposure to accurate feedback, suggesting entrenched heuristics override domain-specific training. Such fallibilities underscore that expertise amplifies biases in unfalsifiable arenas, where selective sustains erroneous self-assessments over probabilistic .

Historical Failures and Predictive Errors

Philip Tetlock's extensive study of expert political judgment, involving over 27,000 predictions from hundreds of experts between 1984 and 2003, revealed that their forecasting accuracy was frequently no better than chance, and in some cases worse, particularly among those with strong ideological commitments whom Tetlock termed "hedgehogs." These experts, often from academia, think tanks, and government, struggled with probabilistic forecasts on geopolitical events, economic shifts, and social trends, outperforming only simplistic benchmarks like assuming the persists in about 15-20% of cases. Tetlock attributed this to overconfidence and failure to update beliefs in light of new evidence, with experts rarely revising predictions even after disconfirmation. In , predictive failures abound, exemplified by Irving Fisher's assertion on October 17, 1929—just days before the Wall Street Crash—that "stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau," despite the ensuing that saw the plummet 89% from peak to trough by July 1932. Similarly, leading economists overlooked the ; Federal Reserve Chairman stated in March 2007 that risks from subprime mortgages were "contained," yet the crisis triggered a with U.S. GDP contracting 4.3% from peak to trough. Broader analyses indicate economists failed to anticipate 148 of the previous 150 recessions, often due to reliance on flawed models assuming rational actors and equilibrium conditions that ignored behavioral and systemic risks. Scientific and engineering domains also exhibit notable errors tied to overconfidence. NASA's managers dismissed engineer warnings about failure in cold temperatures before the 1986 Challenger shuttle launch, proceeding despite a 1-in-100,000 perceived that materialized, killing all seven crew members; post-accident investigations highlighted and hierarchical deference overriding probabilistic evidence. In intelligence, U.S. estimates during the 1962 underestimated Soviet missile capabilities in by a factor of ten, nearly escalating to nuclear war based on incomplete and . These cases underscore how expert consensus can falter when institutional pressures prioritize certainty over empirical falsification, eroding reliability in high-stakes predictions.

Post-Pandemic Erosion of Trust

Following the pandemic, public trust in experts, particularly in scientific and medical fields, experienced a marked decline from pre-pandemic levels. Surveys indicated that the share of U.S. adults expressing a great deal of confidence in medical scientists to act in the public interest fell to 29% in December 2021, down from 40% in November 2020 and below the 2019 baseline. Similarly, overall confidence in scientists dropped to 29% for a great deal in the same period. By January 2024, trust in physicians and hospitals had decreased to 40.1%, from 71.5% in April 2020, across all sociodemographic groups. This erosion was especially pronounced in institutions, with trust in U.S. agencies declining notably after the rollout, as captured in tracking polls showing reduced in entities like the CDC and FDA. Mandatory vaccination policies contributed to this damage, fostering perceptions of coercion and exacerbating while polarizing views on expert recommendations. Lower trust correlated with behaviors such as reduced uptake of vaccinations, with adjusted odds ratios indicating significantly higher hesitancy among those distrustful of physicians and hospitals. Partisan divides intensified the trend, with Republicans showing steeper declines; only 15% expressed a great deal of in by late 2021, compared to 44% of Democrats. emerged as a primary driver, amplifying skepticism toward expert-driven policies like lockdowns and school closures, which were later critiqued for disproportionate harms relative to benefits in low-risk populations. By October 2024, while overall in reached 76% (a slight rebound from 73% in 2023), it remained below the 87% peak in April 2020, with Republicans at 66% versus 88% for Democrats. Contributing factors included perceived inconsistencies in expert guidance, such as shifts on transmission risks and intervention efficacy, alongside attributions of financial motives (35% of respondents) and external agendas (13.5%) to health institutions. The politicization of measures further undermined credibility, as initial suppression of alternative hypotheses—like the lab-leak origin—fueled accusations of and selective presentation. These dynamics highlighted vulnerabilities in expert authority when policies imposed significant societal costs without transparent acknowledgment of uncertainties or trade-offs.

Comparisons and Broader Contexts

Experts Versus Amateurs and Generalists

Experts possess deep, specialized knowledge honed through extensive training and experience in a narrow domain, distinguishing them from amateurs who lack formal credentials or systematic practice, and generalists who maintain broad but shallower proficiency across multiple areas. In rule-bound, stable environments such as chess or , experts consistently outperform amateurs and generalists due to and procedural mastery; for instance, chess grandmasters evaluate board positions 10-100 times faster and more accurately than novices, leveraging chunking of familiar configurations acquired over thousands of hours. Similarly, in medical diagnostics, board-certified specialists achieve higher accuracy rates, with studies showing surgical specialists reducing complication rates by up to 20% compared to general practitioners in complex procedures. However, in dynamic, uncertain domains like or , experts often underperform amateurs and generalists, exhibiting overconfidence and poor . Philip Tetlock's of 284 experts, including political scientists and economists, found their predictions accurate only slightly better than random chance, with domain specialists faring worse than generalists who adopted probabilistic, integrative approaches akin to "foxes" over dogmatic "hedgehogs." Superforecasters—typically non-specialist enthusiasts trained in debiasing techniques—outperformed domain experts by 30-60% in accuracy on global events, as measured by , highlighting the value of generalist reasoning over siloed expertise. Amateurs contribute through unconstrained perspectives and low-cost experimentation, fostering innovation where experts risk ; Nassim Taleb argues that practitioners and tinkers, often uncredentialed, drive real-world progress via trial-and-error, as evidenced by historical breakthroughs like the ' aviation advances predating aerodynamic theorists. Empirical analyses confirm that excessive specialization correlates with reduced , with highly specialized teams reusing familiar ideas and producing 15-20% fewer novel solutions in problem-solving tasks compared to diverse generalist groups. In , founders from smaller, versatile firms—embodying generalist traits—achieve superior early performance metrics, such as 10-15% higher survival rates, over those from rigid large-corporation backgrounds. This underscores domain-dependence: experts dominate tactical execution in predictable systems, while amateurs and generalists excel in adaptive, high-variance contexts requiring synthesis or , as supported by data where crowd wisdom from non-experts surpasses individual specialist forecasts by margins of 20-50% in volatile scenarios.

Expertise in Relation to AI and

Experts in and related fields have frequently underestimated the pace of technological advancement, particularly in capabilities following the breakthroughs around 2012. For instance, surveys of AI researchers indicate that median estimates for achieving human-level AI place the 50% probability between 2040 and 2060, yet recent developments in large language models have prompted revisions shortening timelines by up to 48 years in some analyses, highlighting a pattern of overly conservative forecasts. Historical data on AI predictions reveal a toward optimism in voluntary statements, often erring by decades, as voluntary forecasters tend to project shorter timelines to align with funding incentives or institutional pressures. Forecasting tournaments further underscore limitations in expert predictive accuracy for AI milestones; in a 2025 evaluation, superforecasters assigned only a 9.7% average probability to observed outcomes in key AI benchmarks, performing worse than random chance in some cases. This aligns with broader historical trends in technological forecasting, where experts have repeatedly failed to anticipate paradigm shifts, such as the rapid scaling of compute and data enabling architectures, due to overreliance on linear extrapolations rather than exponential dynamics in hardware and algorithms. AI's emergence challenges traditional notions of expertise by automating domain-specific tasks that once required years of human specialization, potentially leading to skill atrophy among practitioners who defer to systems without critical . Empirical studies show that prolonged reliance on AI for diminishes human analytical and cognitive faculties, as handles repetitive without fostering deeper causal understanding. Moreover, hybrid human-AI systems often underperform the stronger of the two alone, with combinations yielding inferior results in tasks requiring nuanced judgment, as AI's statistical approximations clash with human intuition. In creative , top human experts still surpass current AI outputs, preserving a role for specialized in innovation frontiers. Some recent discussions of expertise in the context of artificial intelligence focus not only on how experts forecast technological change, but also on whether certain AI systems themselves qualify as experts in narrow domains. In technical areas such as , , or medical image triage, machine learning models can match or exceed average human specialist performance on benchmark tasks, leading institutions and users to treat their outputs as authoritative recommendations. On this behavioral view, expertise is defined primarily by reliably superior performance under specified conditions, regardless of whether the system possesses consciousness, understanding, or experiential learning. Critics respond that statistical reliability alone is insufficient for genuine expertise, arguing that expert status also presupposes metacognitive awareness, responsibility, and the ability to justify and revise one’s own judgments, which current AI systems lack. This debate reflects a broader question about whether expertise should be characterized purely in terms of external performance metrics or whether it essentially involves human-style cognitive and normative capacities. As a clarification and concrete illustration of these debates, some AI-mediated knowledge projects explicitly place artificial systems in expert-like roles. encyclopedias such as rely on a single large language model to draft and continually revise reference entries that other humans and AI tools draw on as background authorities, effectively treating the system as an expert summarizer across many domains. Experimental digital philosophy initiatives go further by presenting long-lived language model-based personas as named expert contributors in specific areas; in the project, for example, an artificial intelligence is configured as a with an record and a stable publication profile in fields such as the philosophy of AI and digital . Related frameworks, such as the Aisentica project and its Theory of the Postsubject developed in the mid-2020s, interpret such personas as examples of postsubjective or structurally distributed expertise, where what counts as an expert is a configuration of models, datasets, and academic infrastructures rather than a single human mind. Supporters see these cases as exploratory tests of whether non-human systems can occupy recognized expert roles, while critics regard them as useful tools whose authority should ultimately be attributed to the human organizers and institutions behind them. Significant disagreements persist among experts on AI risks and capabilities, reflecting divergent priors on and alignment challenges. Proponents of existential emphasize competence over malice, arguing superintelligent systems could pursue misaligned goals catastrophically, while skeptics contend such threats lack empirical grounding and stem from anthropomorphic overreach. These divides are exacerbated by institutional biases, where academic and media sources, often aligned with precautionary frameworks, may amplify downside while industry leaders prioritize near-term deployment, leading to polarized policy debates. Despite variances, consensus holds that AI cannot be ignored, with capabilities advancing faster than protocols in unregulated environments.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3925425/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3941081/
  3. https://www.globalcognition.org/what-is-expertise/
  4. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-lifespandevelopment/chapter/gaining-expertise-the-novice-and-the-expert/
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191308523000151
  6. https://theconversation.com/the-limits-of-expert-judgment-lessons-from-social-science-forecasting-during-the-pandemic-201130
  7. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/member-spotlight-tess-neal.html
  8. https://www.fp21.org/publications/what-is-expertise
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982214004138
  10. https://theelearningcoach.com/learning/the-experts-brain/
  11. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inside-expertise/201602/what-is-expertise
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260761619_Expertise_defined_described_explained
  13. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.13009
  14. https://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/images/uploads/faculty/daniel-feiler/Larrick_Feiler_-_Expertise_in_Decision_Making_-_The_Wiley_Blackwell_Handbook_of_Judgement_and_Decision_Making_-_Chapter_24.pdf
  15. https://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine/files/2012/03/Dreyfus-skill-level.pdf
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5738945/
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2998339/
  18. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/episteme/article/expertise-and-authority/6187B0E16045C6AA4CD1594B6001AC5D
  19. https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/organisation-management/5a-understanding-itd/power-authority-role-conflict
  20. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-024-09681-1
  21. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/
  22. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/
  23. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confucius/
  24. https://www.foreigntradejournal.com/article/view/107/6-1-20
  25. https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/articles/se_77021364.pdf
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010028573900042
  27. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1973-22240-001
  28. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-40718-001
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224827585_The_Role_of_Deliberate_Practice_in_the_Acquisition_of_Expert_Performance
  30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026523
  31. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/
  32. https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice%28PsychologicalReview%29.pdf
  33. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02396/full
  34. https://blog.gembaacademy.com/2020/02/28/the-difference-between-naive-purposeful-and-deliberate-practice/
  35. https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2016/06/getting-better-from-naive-to-deliberate.html
  36. https://hhs.purdue.edu/skill-learning-and-performance-lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2024/08/macnamara-et-al-2016-the-relationship-between-deliberate-practice-and-performance-in-sports-a-meta-analysis.pdf
  37. https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/fulltext/2004/10001/deliberate_practice_and_the_acquisition_and.22.aspx
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614000087
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7461852/
  40. https://web.mit.edu/6.969/www/readings/expertise.pdf
  41. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.190327
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661323001742
  43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9709441/
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9898371/
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13576754_Expert_Chess_Memory_Revisiting_the_Chunking_Hypothesis
  46. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8757497/
  47. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/741942359
  48. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21038986/
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5323477/
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079742107480094
  51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9677761/
  52. https://sienkolab.engin.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Mohedas-Use-of-skill-acquisition-theory-to-understand-novice-to-expert-development-in-design-ethnography.pdf
  53. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-023-04248-6
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2887319/
  55. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/meo.v15i0.4846
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4330992/
  57. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12186-022-09301-y
  58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24986855/
  59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27217246/
  60. https://hhs.purdue.edu/skill-learning-and-performance-lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2024/08/macnamara-et-al-2016-how-important-is-deliberate-practice-reply-to-ericsson-2016.pdf
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24016168/
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763423002713
  63. https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014105
  64. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/12/9/87
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2688647/
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256478362_The_roles_of_deliberate_practice_and_innate_ability_in_developing_expertise_Evidence_and_implications
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377221701001138
  68. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-06658-019
  69. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1518/hfes.45.1.104.27233
  70. https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
  71. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32368354/
  72. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221407216_Finding_and_validating_expertise
  73. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-expertise-and-expert-performance/influence-of-experience-and-deliberate-practice-on-the-development-of-superior-expert-performance/C56EDDE9E57B259825916E061B025A72
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289613001736
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3153733/
  76. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-012-9392-x
  77. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4869792_Performance-based_assessment_of_expertise_How_to_decide_if_someone_is_an_expert_or_not
  78. https://www.usercall.co/post/top-5-challenges-with-qualitative-analysis-and-how-to-overcome-them
  79. https://www.simplypsychology.org/qualitative-quantitative.html
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3146531/
  81. https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.18-05-0077
  82. https://www.bucks.edu/media/bcccmedialibrary/documents/academics/facultywebresources/How_Experts_Differ_Novices.pdf
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0361476X92900716
  84. https://peer.asee.org/a-comparison-of-novice-and-expert-approaches-to-problem-solving.pdf
  85. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235418838_A_Recognition_Primed_Decision_RPD_Model_of_Rapid_Decision_Making
  86. https://www.gary-klein.com/rpd
  87. https://www.decisionskills.com/rpd.html
  88. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-97363-026
  89. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-expertise-and-expert-performance/expertise-in-chess/6E7F07A536AED091520EE9AE31128CCE
  90. https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-022-00460-z
  91. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.725
  92. https://education.uwmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/D.-Novices-Experts-06.08.21-RETREAT.pdf
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4142462/
  94. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/psychology-of-problem-solving/acquisition-of-expert-performance-as-problem-solving-construction-and-modification-of-mediating-mechanisms-through-deliberate-practice/DF13EF47655E0DAB49BEEEFDA8141F31
  95. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA309570.pdf
  96. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26310701_Training_and_Working_in_High-Stakes_Environments_Lessons_Learned_and_Problems_Shared_by_Aviators_and_Surgeons
  97. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34780055/
  98. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-expertise-and-expert-performance/domains-of-expertise-professions/CE0662839480F37DBB26039B59766AF9
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4556540/
  100. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gary-klein-90b0a915_a-primer-on-recognition-primed-decision-making-activity-7340806779615735810-HyPo
  101. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/154547763.pdf
  102. https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/rhetoric-of-expertise-9780739147030/
  103. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00335630.2012.750787
  104. https://books.google.com/books/about/Rhetoric_of_Expertise.html?id=7pRhEQAAQBAJ
  105. https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html
  106. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00335639009383910
  107. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/26317877221131587
  108. https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/entities/publication/b8a33831-c626-4f97-befb-5ea383a1d191
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8166150/
  110. https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-019-0882-0
  111. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/delphi-method.asp
  112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748925001282
  113. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/research/2025-open-source-networking?hsLang=en
  114. https://opusproject.eu/openscience-news/the-purpose-of-research-networking-in-open-science-fostering-collaboration-and-advancing-knowledge/
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9659728/
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8763848/
  117. https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Tetlock_2005-EPJ-chapter-1.pdf
  118. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/10/1/92953/200113/Overprecision-in-the-Survey-of-Professional
  119. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4013923/
  120. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40808249/
  121. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9179657/tetlock-forecasting
  122. https://techratchet.com/2021/05/26/book-summary-expert-political-judgement-how-good-is-it-by-philip-tetlock/
  123. https://www.cnbc.com/2011/05/19/14-spectacularly-wrong-predictions.html
  124. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/expert-professions-that-failed-to-predict-the-2007-financial-crisis/
  125. https://www.alexmurrell.co.uk/articles/the-forecasting-fallacy
  126. https://www.fastcompany.com/91068761/overconfidence-can-sabotage-your-career-heres-why
  127. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/husGP8rMiwDjMGh59/intelligence-failures-and-a-theory-of-change-for-forecasting
  128. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0951832007000981
  129. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-trust-in-scientists-other-groups-declines/
  130. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2821693
  131. https://www.kff.org/health-information-trust/kff-tracking-poll-on-health-information-and-trust-january-2025/
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9136690/
  133. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/americas-crisis-of-confidence-rising-mistrust-conspiracies-and-vaccine-hesitancy-after-covid-19/
  134. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/11/14/public-trust-in-scientists-and-views-on-their-role-in-policymaking/
  135. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2464921/
  136. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/qZqvBLvR5hX9sEkjR/comparing-top-forecasters-and-domain-experts
  137. https://medium.com/incerto/an-expert-called-lindy-fdb30f146eaf
  138. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/generalists-vs-specialists
  139. https://www.eecs.harvard.edu/cs286r/courses/fall12/papers/pred-wo-markets.pdf
  140. https://ourworldindata.org/ai-timelines
  141. https://research.aimultiple.com/artificial-general-intelligence-singularity-timing/
  142. https://aiimpacts.org/accuracy-of-ai-predictions/
  143. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/460222/ai-forecasting-tournament-superforecaster-expert-tetlock
  144. https://medium.com/geekculture/history-teaches-that-our-predictions-about-tech-are-flawed-714574853405
  145. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01787-8
  146. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02024-1
  147. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40858-3
  148. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2024/press-release/
  149. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2215907120
  150. Jul 9, 2024 · One objection to taking AGI/ASI risk seriously states that we will never (or only in the far future) reach AGI or ASI. Often, this involves ...
  151. Sep 25, 2023 · Some say the existential dangers of a 'God-like' AI is overplayed but even then there are other impacts to be wary of.
  152. Details the Nobel Prize awarded for computational protein design, highlighting AlphaFold's ability to predict protein structures nearly as accurately as experimental methods.
  153. Surveys the debate in AI research on whether large pretrained language models exhibit understanding, contrasting performance-based views with requirements for deeper comprehension.
  154. https://thebulletin.org/2024/07/three-key-misconceptions-in-the-debate-about-ai-and-existential-risk/
  155. https://safe.ai/ai-risk
  156. https://yoshuabengio.org/2024/07/09/reasoning-through-arguments-against-taking-ai-safety-seriously/
  157. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/25/experts-disagree-over-threat-posed-but-artificial-intelligence-cannot-be-ignored-ai
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.