# [Link] Evaluating experts on expertise

[https://ignoranceanduncertainty.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/expertise-on-expertise/](https://ignoranceanduncertainty.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/expertise-on-expertise/)

Nice article on meta-expertise, ie. the skill of figuring out which experts are actually experts. The author notes that there are domains in which can't really be mastered, and then lays out some useful-seeming tests for distinguishing them:

> Cognitive biases and styles aside, another contributing set of factors may be the characteristics of the complex, deep domains themselves that render deep expertise very difficult to attain. Here is a list of tests you can apply to such domains by way of evaluating their potential for the development of genuine expertise:
> 
> 1.  Stationarity? Is the domain stable enough for generalizable methods to be derived? In chaotic systems long-range prediction is impossible because of initial-condition sensitivity. In human history, politics and culture, the underlying processes may not be stationary at all.
> 2.  Rarity? When it comes to prediction, rare phenomena simply are difficult to predict (see my [post](http://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/psychology/michael-smithson?tab=blog&blogpostid=10588) on making the wrong decisions most of the time for the right reasons).
> 3.  Observability? Can the outcomes of predictions or decisions be directly or immediately observed? For example in psychology, direct observation of mental states is nearly impossible, and in climatology the consequences of human interventions will take a very long time to unfold.
> 4.  Objective or even impartial criteria? For instance, what is “good,” “beautiful,” or even “acceptable” in domains such as music, dance or the visual arts? Are such domains irreducibly subjective and culture-bound?
> 5.  Testability? Are there clear criteria for when an expert has succeeded or failed? Or is there too much “wiggle-room” to be able to tell?
> 
> Finally, here are a few tests that can be used to evaluate the “experts” in your life:
> 
> 1.  Credentials: Does the expert possess credentials that have involved testable criteria for demonstrating proficiency?
> 2.  Walking the walk: Is the expert an active practitioner in their domain (versus being a critic or a commentator)?
> 3.  Overconfidence: Ask your expert to make yes-no predictions in their domain of expertise, and before any of these predictions can be tested ask them to estimate the percentage of time they’re going to be correct. Compare that estimate with the resulting percentage correct. If their estimate was too high then your expert may suffer from over-confidence.
> 4.  Confirmation bias: We’re all prone to this, but some more so than others. Is your expert reasonably open to evidence or viewpoints contrary to their own views?
> 5.  Hedgehog-Fox test: Tetlock found that Foxes were better-calibrated and more able to entertain self-disconfirming counterfactuals than hedgehogs, but allowed that hedgehogs can occasionally be “stunningly right” in a way that foxes cannot. Is your expert a fox or a hedgehog?
> 6.  Willingness to own up to error: Bad luck is a far more popular explanation for being wrong than good luck is for being right. Is your expert balanced, i.e., equally critical, when assessing their own successes and failures?