Rethinking Professionalism: The Meta-Expert

By Dominiek ter Heide | Published: March 24, 2010
Share 
Recently I’ve been a bit annoyed by the use of the word ‘expert’ and ‘professional’. These words are used a lot, but I feel that they’ve been outdated for many reasons. In my own experience, I’ve had more negative than positive transactions with experts and professionals that advertise themselves as such.
Today, while watching the Bill Maher’s show, Real Time, I was quite annoyed by the attitude of economist Stephen Moore. Granted, he was heavily under fire during the debate, but to me he’s a stereotypical person who has become incompetent by the ‘expert’ label that he wears on his forehead. This ‘expert label’ makes you very comfortable, in fact, it makes you so comfortable, that you get addicted to your little comfort zone. It makes you so comfortable that you stop listening and, quite frankly, stop thinking. To borrow a Black Swan / NNT meme: I’d rather listen to Fat Tony!
So what do I consider to be professional? Well, first off:
instead of being a smooth talker with a firm handshake, he/she can listen
instead of being someone who wares a suit, he/she knows what to dress for
instead of being up and about at 8am every morning, he/she can stick to an agreed appointment and be very punctual about it
instead of being the expert in one field, he/she specializes across multiple disciplines
instead of denying and being stubborn, he/she can admit mistakes and move on
instead of being knowledgeable in one vertical, he/she has horizontal knowledge about how to acquire knowledge in many verticals
But I think this issue goes much deeper. A lot of the qualities of today’s ‘educated workers’ are either not relevant any more in this post-industrial era or they are simply insufficient. With the informational changes that are happening all around us, the lines between amateurs and professionals are blurring. Producers and consumers have become prosumers and knowledge that has been aquired during university becomes obsolete on graduation (Alvin Toffler, Revolutionary Wealth).
There are however some characteristics that will make a person thrive in this complex world. Perhaps a person that has obtained these characteristics, can be considered a new kind of expert. An expert that transcends conventional thinking and can escape the confines of expertise, the meta-expert.
This meta-expert:
will constantly improve by using new knowledge and technologies
will admit that a big part of his/her higher education has been unnecessary
understands that economics go beyond monetary transactions and understands that it’s fundamentals lie in creating value
can navigate the emotional storms of the short term, but can also drive a vision of the long-term with instinct and rationale
will engage in both introverted and extraverted activities, as challenging as this might be
has sought and will seek new horizons that lay beyond their comfort zone
will strive to make big dreams possible, through passion and commitment
These are just several characteristics I could think off, but I’m sure YOU, THE READER, can think of some more. If you do so, please add them to the comments section and I will add them.
In my own IT experience I know that some software developers outperform others many times over, but as technology and informationization starts impacting more domains, perhaps this will only increase. This ‘value generation inequality’ doesn’t have to be all that bad though. As systems and organizations get more complex, the ‘chance’ aspect becomes more important, One high return on a bet can overthrow all your previous losses. However, when you’re dealing with a small organization, like a startup, it is very important that your first hire will be one of those meta-experts that has the 10,000x-factor.
But at the end of the day, I’m not really an expert on this matter.

Neo-Expert would indeed a much much better meme to describe such a person. Thanks YC commenter :]

Recently I’ve been a bit annoyed by the use of the word ‘expert’ and ‘professional’. These words are used a lot, but I feel that they are outdated for many reasons. In my own experience, I’ve had more negative than positive transactions with experts and professionals that advertise themselves as such.

Today, while watching Bill Maher’s show, Real Time, I was quite annoyed by the attitude of economist Stephen Moore. Granted, he was heavily under fire during the debate, but to me he’s a stereotypical person who has become incompetent by the ‘expert’ label that he wears on his forehead. This ‘expert label’ makes you very comfortable, in fact, it makes you so comfortable, that you get addicted to your little comfort zone. It makes you so comfortable that you stop listening and, quite frankly, stop thinking. To borrow a Black Swan / NNT meme: I’d rather listen to Fat Tony!

So what do I consider to be professional? Well, first off:

  • instead of being a smooth talker with a firm handshake, he/she can listen
  • instead of being someone who wares a suit, he/she knows what to dress for
  • instead of being up and about at 8am every morning, he/she can stick to an agreed appointment and be very punctual about it
  • instead of being the expert in one field, he/she specializes across multiple disciplines
  • instead of denying and being stubborn, he/she can admit mistakes and move on
  • instead of being knowledgeable in one vertical, he/she has horizontal knowledge about how to acquire knowledge in many verticals

But I think this issue goes much deeper. A lot of the qualities of today’s ‘educated workers’ are either not relevant any more in this post-industrial era or they are simply insufficient. With the informational changes that are happening all around us, the lines between amateurs and professionals are blurring. Producers and consumers have become prosumers and knowledge that has been aquired during university becomes obsoledge on graduation (Alvin Toffler, Revolutionary Wealth).

There are however some characteristics that will make a person thrive in this complex world. Perhaps a person that has obtained these characteristics, can be considered a new kind of expert. An expert that transcends conventional thinking and can escape the confines of expertise, the meta-expert.

This meta-expert:

  • will constantly improve by using new knowledge and technologies
  • will admit that a big part of his/her higher education has been unnecessary
  • understands that economics go beyond monetary transactions and understands that it’s fundamentals lie in creating value
  • can navigate the emotional storms of the short term, but can also drive a vision of the long-term with instinct and rationale
  • will engage in both introverted and extraverted activities, as challenging as this might be
  • has sought and will seek new horizons that lay beyond their comfort zone
  • will strive to make big dreams possible, through passion and commitment

These are just several characteristics I could think off, but I’m sure YOU, THE READER, can think of some more. If you do so, please add them to the comments section and I will add them.

In my own information technology experience I know that some software developers outperform others many times over, but as technology and informationization starts impacting more domains, perhaps this will only increase. This ‘value generation inequality’ doesn’t have to be all that bad though. As systems and organizations get more complex, the ‘chance’ aspect becomes more important, One high return on a bet can overthrow all your previous losses. However, when you’re dealing with a small organization, like a startup, it is very important that your first hire will be one of those meta-experts that has the 10,000x-factor.

But at the end of the day, I’m not really an expert on this matter.

Share 
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

17 Tweets 11 Comments

28 Comments

  1. nathanh
    Posted March 24, 2010 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    "In my own experience, I’ve had more negative than positive transactions with experts and professionals that advertise themselves as such."Great point. The terms expert and guru (maybe professional too) are a lot like nicknames. I can call you those things, but if you call yourself that, I can’t help but think the opposite.

    This comment was originally posted on Hacker News

  2. delluminatus
    Posted March 24, 2010 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    I hope I don’t come off as pedantic but, presuming I understand you properly, I wouldn’t describe these people as meta-experts. Unless I’m mistake, the prefix meta- means, from Wikipedia, "about (its own category)". If this is right, a meta-expert would be an expert about experts, or an expert on experts.Thus, it’s my opinion that calling these people meta-experts could imply something different than what you intend, particularly to people who don’t read the article fully, and if it takes off as an Interblag "term", it could cause some confusion (although it could be that I’m just crazy).

    Perhaps I could interest you in neo-expert?

    This comment was originally posted on Hacker News

  3. delluminatus
    Posted March 24, 2010 at 2:35 am | Permalink

    Oh, my. I hope I don’t come off as pedantic but, presuming I understand you properly, I wouldn’t describe these people as meta-experts. Unless I’m mistake, the prefix meta- means, from Wikipedia, "about (its own category)". If this is right, a meta-expert would be an expert about experts (which is, I think, not what you are saying at all).Perhaps I could interest you in neo-expert?

    This comment was originally posted on Hacker News

  4. delluminatus
    Posted March 24, 2010 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    I hope I don’t come off as pedantic but, presuming I understand you properly, I wouldn’t describe these people as meta-experts. Unless I’m mistake, the prefix meta- means, from Wikipedia, "about (its own category)". If this is right, a meta-expert would be an expert about experts (which is, I think, not what you are saying at all). I think that calling these people meta-experts could imply something different than what you intend, particularly to people who don’t read the article fully, and if it takes off as a "term", it could cause some confusion (although it could be that I’m just crazy).Perhaps I could interest you in neo-expert?

    This comment was originally posted on Hacker News

  5. delluminatus
    Posted March 24, 2010 at 2:36 am | Permalink

    I hope I don’t come off as pedantic but, presuming I understand you properly, I wouldn’t describe these people as meta-experts. Unless I’m mistake, the prefix meta- means, from Wikipedia, "about (its own category)". If this is right, a meta-expert would be an expert about experts, or an expert on experts (which is, I think, not what you are describing at all).Thus, it’s my opinion that calling these people meta-experts could imply something different than what you intend, particularly to people who don’t read the article fully, and if it takes off as a "term", it could cause some confusion (although it could be that I’m just crazy).

    Perhaps I could interest you in neo-expert?

    This comment was originally posted on Hacker News

  6. lotharbot
    Posted March 24, 2010 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    It’s easy to build up an expert reputation and then depend on it. It’s easy to become your group/company expert on such-and-such topic, and then have people defer to you even as your skills deteriorate. What’s hard is to actually retain a real level of expertise. You have to continually challenge yourself, question assumptions, and test the limits of what you know.If you find yourself justifying your answers with "because I’m an expert" on a regular basis, it may be time to reevaluate.

    This comment was originally posted on Hacker News

  7. jamesbritt
    Posted March 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    Neo? Doesn’t that mean "new"? Wouldn’t a neo-expert be an expert on new things? Or a just a new expert?It isn’t the prefix that needs adjustment, it’s the word "expert" that needs replacement.

    And there is already a term for these sorts of people. Polymath

    This comment was originally posted on Hacker News

  8. delluminatus
    Posted March 24, 2010 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    A neo expert is a "new expert". It could be thought of as describing the type of people he is talking about as a "new breed of expert".

    This comment was originally posted on Hacker News

  9. delluminatus
    Posted March 24, 2010 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    A neo expert is a "new expert". It could be thought of as describing the type of people he is talking about as a "new breed of expert", unless I am sorely mistaken.However, I agree that the word "expert" itself is rather disingenuous. Just like the term "hacker", it (as stated in other comments) is not generally considered a description one could apply to oneself, and (still just like "hacker") it means many different things based on context and user.

    This comment was originally posted on Hacker News

  10. delluminatus
    Posted March 24, 2010 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    A neo expert is a "new expert". It could be thought of as describing the type of people he is talking about as a "new breed of expert", unless I am sorely mistaken.However, I agree that the word "expert" itself is rather disingenuous. Just like the term "hacker", it (as stated in other comments) is not generally considered a description one could apply to oneself, and (still just like "hacker") it means many different things based on context and user.

    A good decision, in my opinion, would be to phase out use of "expert" except in instances where you want to imply that a person has a lot of experience in a particular area (so "he is an expert computer scientist" == "he has a lot of experience with computer science"). The term "professional" could be only used to label people who are what we currently call a "consummate professional": someone who is skilled in many areas relating to their field of expertise and to business and people skills in general.

    This comment was originally posted on Hacker News

  11. julius_geezer
    Posted March 24, 2010 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps the old distinction between the wise man and the pedant is what you are after.

    This comment was originally posted on Hacker News

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Additional comments powered by BackType