Chapter 10 - Fooled by Expertise
If you would like a PDF of all chapters in one document you can find it here!
The First Book: Range by David Epstein
David Epstein examined the world’s most successful athletes, artists, musicians, inventors, forecasters, and scientists. He discovered that in most fields—especially those that are complex and unpredictable—generalists, not specialists, are primed to excel. Generalists often find their path late, and they juggle many interests rather than focusing on one. They’re also more creative, more agile, and able to make connections their more specialized peers can’t see.
Who should read this?
All books have a thesis they attempt to answer, and Range's subtitle gives away the thesis right on the cover!
Why generalists succeed in a specialized world?
If the quote," jack of all trades, master of none." resonates with you, this book will fascinate you. Or if you are a curious person might berate themselves having too many interests. The book is about being broadly curious to solve problems more effectively.
If you missed the previous chapters you can find them here:
Chapter 1 - The Cult of the Headstart
Chapter 2 - How the Wicked World Was Made
Chapter 3 - When Less of the Same Is More
Chapter 4 - Learning, Fast and Slow
Chapter 5 - Thinking Outside Experience
Chapter 6 - The Trouble with Too Much Grit
Chapter 7 - Flirting with Your Possible Selves
Chapter 10 - Fooled by Expertise
This chapter opens with two opposing characters, biologist Paul Ehrlich and economist Julian Simon. Ehrlich believed that the world could not sustain continued population growth. So he challenged someone to create a more optimistic scenario. This is where Julian Simon enters the scenario. They bet on five metals with a total cap of $1000. In 1990, Simon found a check for $575.07 in the mail. Every metal had declined in value. Examining data later, economists found from 1900 to 2008, the population quadrupled, and they saw that Ehrlich would have won the bet 63% of the time. The catch: commodity prices are a terrible proxy for population effects.
The problem here is that even after their first bet, both Ehrlich and Simon became entrenched in their viewpoints. Typically, when you have intellectual sparring partners, they help you hone your craft instead of building an ever deeper trench.
Predicting the Future
Enter Philip Tetlock, psychologist and political scientist. Tetlock started a twenty-year study they looked at experts with an average of twelve years of experience in their specialty. The experts had to give specific probabilities of future events.
The study found that the average expert was a horrific forecaster. "When experts declared that some future event was impossible or nearly impossible, it nonetheless occurred 15 % of the time." A Danish proverb helps here "It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future."
Even when faced with errors, they still tended to believe they were on track or that one slight detail had skewed the outcome. They still believed in themselves even with the outcome that had shown otherwise. There was another inverse relationship between fame and the accuracy of predictions. The more likely an expert was to have their prediction featured, the more likely they would always be wrong. To quote from Superforecasting, Tetlock co-authored, "roughly as accurate as accurate a dart throwing chimpanzee."
Foxes and Hedgehogs
Tetlock's research did uncover an unlikely subgroup he called an integrator. These interrogators outperformed their colleagues. On to more animal analogies! I'm sure you expected this!
Narrow-view hedgehogs, who know one big thing
Integrator foxes, who know many little things
Tetlock published his research in 2005, which caught the attention of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA). The IARPA is an organization within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence responsible for leading research to overcome complex challenges relevant to the United States Intelligence Community.
In 2011, the IARPA launched a four-year prediction tournament with five researchers-led teams. The team run by Tetlock and Mellers was called the Good Judgment Project. What made their team unique was it was established by volunteers with no particular specialization. They just had to be foxy. They blew away the competition. More on Tetlock's work can be found in Superforecasting.
Superforecasting
What makes Tetlock's forecasters astonishing was their skill, but when combined, they become even better. Meaning they had an innate skill at effectively collaborating. David interviewed a few of the forecasters, and a pattern soon emerges. The pattern is reminiscent of polymath inventors within companies. They find specialists, mine them for knowledge and integrate.
Expanding on qualities of good teams is now termed "active open-mindedness," coined by Jonathan Baron. A person who actively open-minded views their ideas as something that needs testing rather than assuming its c’s correct. Instead of trying to convince teammates, they are right. They encourage them to falsify their beliefs. For example, Yale professor Dan Kahan found that more scientifically literate adults were more likely to become dogmatic about politically polarizing science topics. For the forecasters, this was not the case. Instead, they buck the trend. They actively sought out contrary points of view.
The take-home point here is not to say foxes or hedgehogs are better. The world needs both to solve the most difficult problems. A significant difference between these types of people is that when new information arrives contrary to your idea, the fox will adjust more.