 Poster: A snowHead
|
An expert is someone who is better at doing something than you are.
I came to this definition after a chat with a skier I am better than (I am her teacher). She related that one day she was skiing with people she was better than and one of the people said, why would an expert skier like yourself need to take lessons? She was taken aback, because she did not in her wildest dreams consider herself an expert skier. Then she realized that being an expert is not a rank by established standards but a comparative ranking of those in present company.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I think that's a bit dangerous - after all, if I decide to go skiing off-piste my definition of an expert qualified to take me off the beaten track isn't based solely on whether he/she is a technically better skier than I am, and has more local knowledge. Expertise has to be based to a large extent on objective criteria, and we have to hope that internationally agreed standards provide at least a reasonably reliable 'rule of thumb'!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
To a visitor trying to get around, a local resident is an expert, eh?
My point is that anyone really can be an expert, if one runs in the right crowd!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
To be a teacher, it has been said you only need to be one page ahead of your pupils.
But to be an expert, in anything, implies a high degree of competence, knowledge and, in sports, the relevant skills and ability. Not just being a bit better than the next person.
To be acknowledged as an expert skier or boarder would imply an ability to pass certain tests to prove one can do it. Not just claiming to be able to do it well. Or being promoted to that rank by less able friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
What definitive test would we need to pass to be recognized as an expert skier?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
nolo, judge a leader by those who follow.
I don't think there could be a definitive test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting ideas here.
PG wants standards and qualifications: very sensible, but for many things there are no qualifications. Experts on Heavy Metal music? Expert on Val Thorens? Expert on mobile pnones?
Even when you have qualifications, they may not impress all. My family always check any medical advice or information I give with the Real Experts: hairdresser, barman, tea lady, best mate.
And as nolo has realised, we do tend to credit Expert on those with more knowledge: to many I am expert on All Matters Skiing and Computers. But here at snowHeads I am just a novice in awe of Real Experts. Those Experts though may not regard themselves as experts at all. Indeed, modesty is a common trait of many I regard as experts.
So, if there is any firm conclusion from this wandering post, it is
1. Anyone that claims they are an expert, aint
2. Many experts don't realise they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonpim, I wouldn't choose to go skiing off-piste with someone based in their expertise in fixing mobile phones or the size of their Black Sabbath collection ... and I think nolo had skiing in mind when he posted originally  But you misquote me - I just said we needed at least some standards as a "rule of thumb". Plenty of people have useful information to contribute of course, and plenty of alleged experts can get it wrong... but given the choice between having an operation carried out by a surgeon, or a worker from the local abattoir ... think I'd opt for the former...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Careful, PG! nolo, is a she!!!  And, btw, a truly expert skier by any measure. Even if I've only had the pleasure of viewing her skiing on video.
She is also, as you have seen, a bit of an expert at generating thoughtful, insightful conversation.
I do not know that I would be comfortable providing a generic definition of "expert" along these lines. Dictionary.com reports these as the definitions:
| Quote: |
1. A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.
2.
a. The highest grade that can be achieved in marksmanship.
b. A person who has achieved this grade.
|
In the case of skiing, I think that there are multiple definitions of "expert" based on which aspect of skiing we are considering. For example, I know exceptional skiers who have no clue what they are actually doing when they ski. I also know those who are great coaches, but do not have the on-snow skills of the athletes they coach. There are some, like nolo, who combine the two in amazing ways.
I am careful to dub someone an "expert." However, as some have said, when one considers oneself expert, I begin to doubt the judgement!
While expertise is often in the eye of the beholder, I do believe that there are objective measures that can be applied--minimum standards for expertise. Once one reaches the rarified air of the truly expert, however, I suspect that one begins to know how much one doesn't know. This is what has happened with me in the areas where I am considered an expert by others (various aspects of technology and the Internet, for example). I am learning how much I have yet to learn, and I know many who know so much more than I!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My apologies, nolo!
ssh, more comprehensive dictionary resources suggest that there is a broader range of definitions. I agree with your distinctions, but the original premise of an expert simply being defined as someone further up the hierarchical scale in a given group with respect to skill/knowledge/teaching ability etc, well I don't think that's a useful definition at all. At least, not in practical terms.
That said, nolo's definition is undeniably more accurate in the purest sense of the term. For where we set the 'expertise' bar is arbitrary, at least to a degree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I think that everyone is right on this.
I can recall that when I began karate, I used to look at those with a green belt with awe and think that when I got to that level, I would be an expert. However, when I got my green belt, I realised that I was still a novice. I would then look to the purple belts and think, when I get to that level, then I would be an expert. When I got there, I realised that I was still far from being an expert. Maybe when I got to black belt ...
I agree with Jonpim, 1. Anyone that claims they are an expert, aint and 2. Many experts don't realise they are.
I also agree with nolo, "An expert is someone who is better at doing something than you are." But that doesn't mean that anyone ever considers themselves to be an expert, because there is always someone better than them.
I also agree with PG, "I think that's a bit dangerous ". I think it is also, but that is just part of life. You often see people skiing slopes that are too difficult for them being after taking advice from "expert" mates - maybe those that are on their 1st holiday take advice from those on their 2nd. We all seek advice from others. If it works out, we may go back for more, if it doesn't we try someone else.
I also agree with the others that have posted on this thread, hey what an agreeable sort of person I must be. But not an expert at skiing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
This topic came up on Epic a year or two ago, and as I recall, grew into a long and interesting thread. For example, I think Nolo proposed in that earlier thread the wonderful and provocative concept of aboriginal folks who had never seen snow (and certainly could not ski themselves), but who could nevertheless clearly recognize expert skiing.
IMHO, her original question is not stated accurately enough to have one answer to which everyone can agree. Intentionally asking a question this way is a great way to trigger a round of "Guided Discovery", the friend of many a high level ski instructor like Nolo. OTOH, I'm a nuts-and-bolts sort of guy, and if someone asks me a question that is a bit ambiguous, I assume that they really do want some sort of definitive answer (ie, not a discussion), but haven't thought about the problem hard enough to weed all of the ambiguity out of their question.
My approach to answering such questions is to remove enough of the ambiguity so that I can at least give a definitive answer to one question in the family of questions spanned by the originally stated version. This approach not only "answers the question", but, by example, it teaches the person who asked the question how to formulate questions accurately enough so that they can have an unambiguous answer, a very important skill in my part of the universe. Anyway, I'll offer the same comments and definition that I did on Epic and see how it goes over in this forum.
IMHO, the two key things making the question, "What is an expert (skier)?", ambiguous are: (a) a clear statement of the population (ie, the group) under consideration, and (b) some agreed upon, reproducible metric. Once these are specified, somebody who is up in the higher percentiles (95, 99, whatever) of that group as measured by the metric is an expert.
Thus, a person may consider a neighbor that goes on ski vacations and can flail their way down a green slope without injuring themselves to be an expert skier. The reason is that the population they are subconsciously considering consists of all of their non-skiing acquaintances and this one green-piste skier that they do know. Their metric is very simple – did the neighbor come back from vacation in one piece. If anyone has a skiing question in that neighborhood, they will go to Mr./Mrs. Green Piste, as he/she is truly *their* expert in this subject.
This is analogous to Ray Zorro’s comments on his experiences as he progressed up the ranks in karate. At each step along the way, the population he was subconsciously considering was limited – it was always the group most visible and understandable to him, the next higher level belts. On the other hand, while he informally felt in awe of the people just ahead of him, I have no doubt that if someone specifically asked Ray, “Who are the experts in your karate school”, he would have always given the correct answer (ie, the black belts). The reason is that in the latter question, the population was clearly specified (i.e., “…in your karate school.”), and the metric was implicitly (but also clearly) specified, namely, the formal system of levels in karate.
The same thing obviously happens in skiing, and to return to the original question, “What is an expert (skier)?”, to me, the metric is not the most difficult problem. Within generous limits, everybody including Nolo’s natives can probably more or less agree on how to rank order a group of skiers, and if pressed to be more specific, can probably do it on the basis of fastest, most rad, most graceful, etc.. OTOH, agreeing on the population under consideration is likely to be more subjective. Some very reasonable choices for this might be: (a) all of the skiers on the mountain that day; (b) all of the park and pipe skiers in the world; (c) your colleagues/friends; etc.
So, if someone asks me, “What is an expert (skier)?”, I’ll probably shrug and refer them to this thread and the one on Epic, but if someone on the lift asks me, “Is that person one of the best skiers on the mountain today?”, or “Who are the top (expert) GS skiers in the world?”, etc., I’ll be able to give an answer, not a discussion.
Even if somebody states/asks, “Don’t you think I’m an expert compared to all the other people who show up for lessons?”, I might be able to honestly tell them something like “We probably don’t get one person in 200 that skis as well as you.” Of course, I probably won’t tell him that the 200 that were just ahead of him consisted of six bus loads of elementary school kids that had never skied before.
Tom / PM
PS – BTW, IMHO, when looking for a BC / off-piste guide, if you ask for an “expert skier”, you have asked the wrong question. As above, you must specify the population under consideration, and ask for something like “an expert guide to the Whistler backcountry”. This person may happen be an “expert skier” as defined by some of the metrics mentioned above, and defined within some of the populations mentioned above, but that really doesn’t matter when the snow is going “Whoomf” with every step you take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
when looking for a BC / off-piste guide, if you ask for an “expert skier”, you have asked the wrong question. As above, you must specify the population under consideration, and ask for something like “an expert guide to the Whistler backcountry”
|
Of course - apologies for not spelling this out earlier in this thread, but we have had numerous threads on this topic and your view is one most here support and have stressed repeatedly - a requirement for a guide with in-depth local knowledge is a clear preference, if not a prerequisite in certain circumstances.
It seems to me that most comments above say pretty much the same thing. Expertise is an abstract concept and, to a degree, assessed in an arbitrary fashion (the upper boundaries of "expertise" being restricted by purely human, physical, intellectual etc, limitations). Hence the 'expert' could be defined as the most accomplished/knowledgeable in any given company/group at a point of time.
However, maybe I’m missing something, but I see this as a rather pointless debate. We have developed empirical measurement of expertise, assessed by those with relevant experience. In practical terms ‘mastery’ can only be characterised by consistent performance, at a predefined level, at which international standards are set and applied hopefully with a degree of equivalence. The bar has to be set neither too high nor too low. Inevitably mistakes are made, and levels reassessed, the definition of an expert is constantly evolving. However these guidelines provide the only definition of expertise of real, practical use to the layman.
This doesn’t mean one should blindly accept everything one is told by an alleged ‘professional’ of course. On the other hand, if someone apparently ‘does something better than you do’, but has no qualification to prove as much, then it would be a foolish person who followed their lead based purely on their say so, and nothing more concrete.
It’s true that ‘experts’ rarely provide answers for your questions. Just informed opinions, based on knowledge at the time. Still, some standards have to be better than none at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Actually, when looking for a BC guide, I ask if the person is a Certified International Mountain Guide. Having skied some backcountry with CMGs, I have noticed that according other clients' self-assessment as "experts" the designation encompasses objective skiing skills levels from Advanced Intermediate to Competitor. So, if you are a ski instructor and you think you have it bad with ski school ability splits, think of the CMGs and all their experts!
A famous teacher of skiing, among other things, once asserted to me that experts are the bane of this profession. Wanting to be an expert ski teacher myself, I had to ask why he spoke such blasphemy. He explained,
"Learning is creating new pathways from the known to the unknown. The first clumsy attempts are like a footpath hacked out through the underbrush, but with familiarity the path becomes as smooth and fast as a superhighway that a person can zip along automatically at tremendous speed. Experts are people who exist on the superhighway of their subject area. Too often, when new learners come to them for learning, the experience is greatly frustrating, because the experts attempt to bring the novices onto the superhighway when their readiness is only to hack away at underbrush. No wonder skiing and fear are linked in so many people's minds."
"But what is worst," he said, "is that experts unknowingly steal the learning from their charges, by not having the patience to let them construct the new knowledge highway for themselves."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
nolo, Physicsman, wonderful stuff!
Physicsman's consideration of "population" (the group we are considering) is an excellent analysis. I had been thinking along similar lines, but would never have put it so well.
nolo's quote from her "famous teacher of skiing" describes well the mistakes many of us make (espescally me) in trying to Teach without letting the student Learn. i will try an remember her words tomorrow as I watch some trainee hacking away.
Of course, as soon as we start puting fingers-to-keyboard a Heisenberg-like effect kicks in. Normally we use the word without thinking (and probably in similar sense to nolo's original post), but now we have started to kick a few neurones into action and actually think about what we mean: "expert" then takes on a rather different meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
| experts are the bane of this profession. |
Or vital to the profession - depends how you look at it! Not the best analogy I know, but the teacher leading you towards the learning superhighway with knowledge, but little teaching ability, is an engine running low on fuel. Your 'learning vehicle' will soon grind to a halt, as you suggest. However teaching skills, without knowledge, provide a learning vehicle with the fuel to go far but no engine. You won't even be able to set off along the road.
It's all semantics - I'm sure we're saying the same thing, really
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Jonpim, To be honest, I think that discussions along these lines really only serve to complicate a pretty simple issue. We know - or should know - that there are good and bad teachers, good and bad systems, and various levels inbetween. There are various degrees of 'expertise', 'skill', 'knowledge', or a combination of these. We are aware that the definition of expertise is arrived at arbitrarily to a point, to sustain a workable system, to provide a practical framework to work within.
I may be being particularly dim here. But I really haven't a clue what point is being made above that isn't just a statement of the obvious?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
PG, there are two possible diagnoses:
1. You are thinking too hard
2. You are sober.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Jonpim, Well actually I was trying to respond, directly, to the argument put forward ... not doing a triple lutz sidestep to avoid answering points made! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
ssh, Not worthless, of course not! But not particularly useful if it only consists of a convoluted examination of a nebulous term, and doesn't directly address the question of how skiers can decide what the practical application of expertise should mean.
With respect to ski instruction, I must say that I found the idea of expertise being "the bane of the profession" rather strange, and misleading. Because expertise in this domain (or indeed any teaching domain) has never implied knowledge and skill alone, as seems to have been suggested. An expert skier is not the same as an expert ski instructor. The latter obviously also requires expertise in instruction, ie the ability to communicate and teach in the most apt way for the pupil concerned.
Sorry for hammering this point, but otherwise the wrong impression may be given; ie that an average skier who is a good teacher should somehow be more acceptable than a good skier who is not so good at instruction. I just think that both elements are equally important.
(As for the systems themselves... well, I reckon that topic deserves a thread to itself... or have we already done that one ?! )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PG, interesting thoughts. Frankly, I'll take a great coach who may not be able to ski well him/herself to a great skier who can't teach.
However, "expert" may simply be in terms of their skiing, not their teaching. I think that was the point of the quoted instructor: expert skiers often confuse the devil out of newbies because they don't realize how long it takes to construct that superhighway for each individual.
As one who started playing golf late in life, I think that I really get that! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, PG, do you ever sleep?
G'night! I'm going to dream of snow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
ssh, Agreed, that's what the 'system' is for - or should be - to produce teachers with a minimum level of ability in both areas. So let's move from the confusing subject of the meaning of a term, and discuss what's wrong with the system, if it's faulty, and what can be done about it! How should teaching ability be pushed to the fore during a would-be instructor's training period? Is the importance of these skills stressed differently in the training systems of different countries, or is there true equivalence?
(I'm still on Provençal time since moving to the Alps from down south .... up at 6am, obligatory siesta during the afternoon... still get my 8 hours!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was once told by someone who is an expert in the eyes of anyone who has seen them ski, or, like me, had the privilege to ski with them...
"ski like a stream of water flowing down the mountain"
Now this person is also an excellent teacher, and was able to pass on techniques to me in a way I could understand and relate to (we all learn in different ways)
I'm not yet flowing down the mountain, but I'm starting to see the possibility of how to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Expert: adj, saggy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| PG (in various messages) wrote: |
...However, maybe I’m missing something, but I see this as a rather pointless debate. We have developed empirical measurement of expertise, assessed by those with relevant experience. In practical terms ‘mastery’ can only be characterised by consistent performance, at a predefined level, at which international standards are set and applied hopefully with a degree of equivalence...
...ssh, Not worthless, of course not! But not particularly useful if it only consists of a convoluted examination of a nebulous term, and doesn't directly address the question of how skiers can decide what the practical application of expertise should mean... |
I quite agree with PG.
IMO, the aspect of the original question, "What is an expert?", that trips up many people is the lack of any mention of the specific population under consideration. This is an extremely basic conceptual error, and, IMHO, is what makes the original question so nebulous. Like PG (I suspect), I find prolonged discussion of such ill-posed questions to be boring.
On a closely related matter, when I am the student, I am truly annoyed by the teaching technique in which some question is intentionally left vague "to stimulate discussion". I find this quite condescending and generally a waste of my time. While it may teach children how to ferret out and correct vagueness, it takes time away from discussion of the presumed "real" question. In fact, use of this "slow-ball" teaching technique usually makes me suspect that the original question was disingenuous (ie, there was no *real* question). [rant=off]
Fortunately, in the case of the question which started this thread, the vagueness is a very easy error to understand and fix, and this is what I attempted to point out in my previous post in this thread.
Specify a population (eg, BC guides, GS racers, etc.), and the question, "What is an expert?", morphs into something like, "What is an expert BC guide for the Whistler BC?".
This more specific question essentially asks what is the best metric to use to judge members of this population. IMHO, this is a much less sophomoric question, and, in the line of PG's comments, will support non-trivial discussion and information flow (eg, what are suitable minimum standards, is there a standards setting organization, who do you rely on for referrals, etc.).
Just my $0.02,
Tom / PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student says something to me on the chairlift in March. She finds it very interesting, and I do too, because it explains why she will be in class as long as I am "her" expert. I decide to share the comment with you folks and see what comes of it as a way to entertain ourselves while biding our time until we're back on skis again.
The point of my original post was that in any population, the one who is best at the game is the reigning expert. Perhaps that's self-evident, and I would be first to acknowledge that I am often dazzled by the most mundance and uninteresting phenomena.
[BTW, the guided discovery technique that PM says I am using was originally called the Socratic Method, but so few people read Plato these days that the reference had to be updated.]
Here's what we seem to have established so far: there are two kinds of experts, the situational expert and the true expert. The situational expert is the best of group; the true expert would be recognized as such in any group.
I've shared the notion that "experts are the bane of the [ski teaching] profession." That sort of comment is intended to create cognitive dissonance. It goes along with an aside I'm told comes from Canada: "Ski instructors teach what you can't do."
Let me add another bit: the instruction editor of a U.S. ski magazine once patiently explained to me that "readers do not want to learn new things, they just want to be reminded of what they already know."
Put the two together, what do you get?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
| Here's what we seem to have established so far: there are two kinds of experts, the situational expert and the true expert. The situational expert is the best of group; the true expert would be recognized as such in any group. |
Replace "situational expert" by "situational adviser", or some such term, and no confusion will arise. "A true expert" is pretty inappropriate as well, as there is no such thing. It's all relative.
| Quote: |
| I've shared the notion that "experts are the bane of the [ski teaching] profession." That sort of comment is intended to create cognitive dissonance. |
It creates far more than cognitive dissonance are far as I am concerned! You might as well state that ski teaching experts are the bane of the ski teaching profession. Which is completely illogical.
| Quote: |
| Let me add another bit: the instruction editor of a U.S. ski magazine once patiently explained to me that "readers do not want to learn new things, they just want to be reminded of what they already know." |
If the two premises were accurate, you would have people who can't teach instructing people who don't want to learn. I certainly contest the latter bland generalisation - (on what is this based?) - and the former to a degree as well. There are plenty of ski instructors who both can teach and enjoy doing so, and qualifications in Europe are putting an increasing emphasis on the ability to coach at all levels. The ability to ski well is very important, but training recognises that the teaching skills involved in passing on technique, mountaincraft, and the desire to learn/improve are vital.
What all this boils down to is how do we ensure that the ability to communicate with a pupil on an individual level becomes an integral part of all instructor training. If we can get away from discussion of definitions and down to the nitty gritty, ie what is wrong with the system if it produces any coaches that lack the ability to teach, and what can be done about it, then I feel that this would be a far more constructive debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
If the two premises were accurate, you would have people who can't teach instructing people who don't want to learn.
|
I don't think the editor, who was offering feedback on a writing assignment, meant that people don't want to learn, but that they want to build on what they know. If people do not see the relevance of an expert's teaching, they might comply but they won't cooperate. This explains why we see people skiing post-lesson exactly as they skied pre-lesson, though they might have done as the instructor wished during the lesson. They don't want to do weird stuff that doesn't relate to their understanding and beliefs about good skiing. The difference between expert-centered teaching and student-centered teaching is the value given to the student's beliefs about good skiing based on past experiences, knowledge, skills, and abilities. Whatever I teach has to remind the student of what he or she already knows, or it will lack a tether and will soon float away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
nolo,
| Quote: |
| The difference between expert-centered teaching and student-centered teaching is the value given to the student's beliefs about good skiing based on past experiences, knowledge, skills, and abilities. Whatever I teach has to remind the student of what he or she already knows, or it will lack a tether and will soon float away. |
Portraying teaching methodologies as polar opposites I don't think is very useful. Balance is key, the one complements the other. Without knowledge, or without the ability to communicate and teach, results are at best unsatisfactory. And talking in a vacuum ignores the realities - in a group you can usually only cater for the individual at the expense of the whole. Private tuition is the exception rather than the rule.
All learning implies building on what you already know. Without a point of reference any lesson will be meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I am getting confused here - an expert skier is presumably is presumably someone
who is better than most at getting down any given slope. Just because someone is better than me at that does not make them an expert. But the fact that they are better than me doesnt make me not an expert (my skiing does that).
If you have a metric (for example ski racing) then you can assign expertness based on a time over a course. If you dont then you rely on a wishy-washy appreciation which might have stylistic biases (and suffer from a lack of real information). Sufficient people "in the know" would be able to come up with a
group of people regardable as "experts". Others would or would not be experts by comparison with that group.
How good a skier you need to be to teach skiing is a very different question.
Not expert is my answer.
Dang I think I lost myself in the middle of that...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
PG, you're absolutely right that learning is building on what you already know. I think my mentor was cautioning about the tendency of experts to believe they know all. Such experts are very hard to teach! All this harks back to Jonpim's
| Quote: |
Experts though may not regard themselves as experts at all. Indeed, modesty is a common trait of many I regard as experts.
|
A good teacher never feels they have it made, that it's a cakewalk, that they could phone it in better than 97% of the others, that they are anywhere as close to perfect as someone else they could name.
I think my student's point and certainly my point is that as long as you believe you're not as good as you could be, you will seek to learn more. I think that was exactly my mentor's point too.
There are no "true experts" indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
> ...There are no "true experts" indeed...
If you are serious, then you must mean you would not call Olympic level skiers experts, the best skiing instructors in PSIA would not be experts, etc. If so, then there are no "experts" and the word has no meaning. I think that's a silly extreme.
Personally, I'll still stick to my "95-percentile in some population by some metric" definition.
Tom / PM
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Mon 17-05-04 20:45; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Physicsman, Inevitable consequence of this type of convoluted debate... you can define something out of existence if you try hard enough! I was just saying that there is no intrinsic, invariable 'expertise criterion', just a yardstick by which we measure people for practical purposes. Your own definition makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I have the misfortune to be an "expert" - i.e. I act as an expert witness and am fondly referred to by lawyers and the courts as an "expert". There is nothing so humbling as Mother Nature to remind you of just how little that term means,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...Inevitable consequence of this type of convoluted debate...
You nailed it.
Tom / PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A meandering thread, perhaps, but hardly a debate. I tend to think that you aren't an expert until other experts say you are, because they are the only population qualified to make that distinction. Then again, a panel of experts can say you're an expert, but until the market agrees, you won't be employed as an expert. In which case, I'd say a true expert is someone who wannabe experts seek out for assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
expert: someone having special skill or knowledge (OED)
I think we just have to accept that this term is elastic. It can be used as a weapon, too as the lawyers did in dubbing Alan one. As Witgenstein said: Meaning is use.
I took nolo's first entry as a good aphorism, but anything can be the occasion for analysis or argument, thank goodness (especially for snowheads).
Off subject, here is another aphorism I like:
"Joyous distrust is a sign of health. Everything absolute belongs to pathology".
(Nietzsche. the master of aphorisms)
Or here is one for you, Physicsman (perhaps a bit too dogged to be a perfect aphorism and rather timid beside the sweep of the Nietzsche, but very sane):
"There can never be any reason for rejecting one instinctive belief except that it clashes with others. It is of course possible that all or any of our beliefs may be mistaken, and therefore all ought to be held with at least some element of doubt. But we cannot have reason to reject a belief except on the ground of some other belief." (Bertrand Russell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, snowball, Neitzsche, Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell in one posting!
You must be an expert!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
