Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The Expert Mind

  • Aug. 23rd, 2006 at 12:30 PM
economics, brainiac, thinking, math
Scientific American has a recent article titled The Expert mind exploring the differences between experts and amateurs in their fields of expertise. The article primarily uses chess ("the drosophila of cognitive science") as a way of understanding the subject, since it's relatively to determine who and how good the chess experts are, and then perform experiments on them. It's long been known that experts see things differently. In chess, for example, it's not that they can look ahead more moves or are better at memorizing the board, but that they see the structure of the game, which makes it easy to understand where the pieces are and what they could be doing. While it's not clear exactly what's going on in the expert brain, the author does show some evidence to suggest an interesting conclusion: that experts are made, not born. For example, a guy decided to make his three daughters chess masters, so he home-schooled them, training them in chess for six hours a day and, lo and behold, they are all chess masters. The implication: you can become an expert in whatever you want, if you put your mind to it!

Tags:

Comments

[info]alicetiara wrote:
Aug. 23rd, 2006 09:55 pm (UTC)
Well... um, I would think that was obvious.

It's not like anyone could have some sort of inherent propensity to be an expert at, say, macroeconomics or needlework. They're all taught, learned bodies of knowledge.
[info]optic wrote:
Aug. 23rd, 2006 11:41 pm (UTC)
I didn't think the nature/nurture debate was settled. certainly people might reasonably think there are things like propensity to be good at math or music or whatever. obviously, there is a lot of learning involved regardless, but the article is suggesting there is no inherent talent, which I'm pretty sure is not a settled question.
[info]alicetiara wrote:
Aug. 24th, 2006 12:12 am (UTC)
Being "talented" at something, or being a genius or a prodigy or whatever is totally different from being an expert, which requires diligence, skill, study, application, etc.
[info]optic wrote:
Aug. 24th, 2006 12:16 am (UTC)
the article does specifically talk about music prodigies, who are at least implied in passing to be like chess prodigies (i.e. they just worked hard). perhaps a weak link in the article is not really showing that talent in music is like talent in chess, or trying to describe what sorts of talents are completely learned and which might have a genetic component.
[info]olesia wrote:
Aug. 24th, 2006 12:45 am (UTC)
reportedly if you practice intelligently (not just rote repetition, but learning from mistakes and practicing with awareness and mindfulness) at something 10 hours a day for 3 years, you too can become an expert/master... (i can't find the source for that, hence "reportedly"
[info]optic wrote:
Aug. 24th, 2006 12:48 am (UTC)
that's pretty much what this article is getting at, though without any specific numbers. who has 10 hours a day though?