Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

nafex - Re: [NAFEX] OT joke shepherd

nafex@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Joe Hecksel <jhecksel@voyager.net>
  • To: North American Fruit Explorers <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [NAFEX] OT joke shepherd
  • Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:24:39 -0500

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!"







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page