Needless to say there are many advantages in becoming an expert in your field.
For example, a person predictability skill is far greater than a novice. Expert typist move
their finger towards keys corresponding to the letters that they would need to type more
quickly than do novice typers (Norman & Rumelhart, 1983). Looking ahead is what allows you to have an advantage over a novice. Musicians and athletes acquire this advantage as well in order to anticipate their next notes and moves.
Another great advantage of an expertise is that they tend to think more systematically when trying to solve difficult problems that are within their field of knowledge. A study found by Vollmeyer, Burns, Holyoak, 1996 is said that the investigators found out that the better problem solvers were more systematic in their approach to the lab than were poorer problem solvers. For example, in seeking an explanation of a biological phenomenon, they were more likely to hold one variable constant while varying other variables (Sternberg, 2006).
Some other advantages of becoming an expert in you field are:
- Obtaining big schemas that contain knowledge of your expertise
- You become highly organized
- You develop a sophisticated approach on solving problem
- Automatically have the steps/strategies in solving a problem
- You know the level of difficulty in solving a problem
- Knowing how to monitor your own problem solving skills
- Fast approach to problems/skills
- Highly accurate
- Easy to adapt to new information for skill/ problem
Although there are many advantages in becoming an expert one may say that there are disadvantages in being a person of expertise as well. There are situations where a person can be skillfully knowledgeable in their field; however there still is room for mistakes. Considering that there could be many variables to solving a problem in a certain field of expertise, since there is so many options a person may not be completely correct in their findings or aware of. One example of this was when scientist experts admitted they were wrong about findings of ecstasy leading to brain damage and Parkinson’s disease. In an article from the Observer called “Scientist admit: we were wrong about ‘E’” it was aid that their study was based on a huge blunder. The study was based on a reaction that the laboratory monkeys and baboons had on to the injections of the drug. However it became known that it in fact was not ecstasy that was being injected, instead these animals were being injected with methamphetamine, the tubes were incorrectly labeled by the supplier leading to a massive scientific mistake. The article proves that one may be an expert in their field, nevertheless does not mean they will commit errors in their domains. The only problem is those experts are in actuality never supposed to make mistakes that is why they are called experts in the first place; it allows no room for mistakes.
Another potential disadvantage which may answer the question that was posed from the beginning of this essay is that it may not be as easy as we think to become an expert in a domain. If becoming an expert in your field requires not just being knowledgeable but innately talented, it could be much more difficult than originally planned. Because it is not just about practicing at this point, it is having a natural knack for it as well. This is why not everyone could be an expert; it takes a certain person to be able to do so. If it was that easy everyone will be experts in a domain.
Both knowledge and innate talent is needed to prosper in your field of expertise, one cannot exist without the other. This makes it all the more difficult to be able to able to achieve your expertise of liking.
Works Cited
Revill, J. (2003, September Sunday). The Observer. Retrieved May Monday, 2008, from Guardian.co.uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/sep/07/drugsandalcohol.science
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Cognitive Psychology. Belmont: Tomson Wadsworth.
