North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

[Joe Hecksel <jhecksel@voyager.net>]

Hello All:

Much research has been done on the topic of "Experts".  It seems that 
there are never enough of them to satisfy demand.

The cold-blooded research and much linear regression analysis indicates 
that Experts use the same 3-to-5 primary variables that fresh 
practitioners use for their clinical judgments.  And Experts, in 
general, combine the data in the same ways as the Newbies and reach the 
same conclusions.  (Slovic, Dawes, etc)

The research indicates that fresh practitioners are aware of their 
limitations and have an accurate picture of how they reached their 
diagnoses.

The research indicates that Experts have far more confidence in their 
diagnoses than new practitioners but that confidence is not always 
warranted.  Also, Experts believe their diagnostic process to be far 
more complex than it actually is.  Basically, Experts use those 3-to-5 
primary variables to reach a tentative conclusion, and then use another 
19 variables (not necessarily independent ones, either) to support their 
original guess, impress the clients and pad the billing.

So the inescapable conclusion is that Experts (and consultants) provide 
us with reassurance so we can march off in confidence...even if it is 
the wrong direction.

Naomi wrote:

... You're a consultant," said the shepherd.
> That's right," said the man.  "How did you know?"
>
> "Easy," the shepherd answered.  "You turned up without being asked.  You 
> want to be paid to give me an answer I already know, to a question I 
> never asked.  And you know nothing about what I do.  Now give me back my 
> dog!"