I think expertise applies more to specific skills, to sciences, than it does to art, and maybe that its why you are dubious of the concept, because where you (M.M.) are most remarkable and seem most driven is towards areas which are not black and white and cannot be judged simply.
A thought I have is that the more one believes in expertise, the less one tends to believe in genius. I recently read Nietzsche's "All Too Human." He, of course, did not believe in divine genius, and I don't think even in genius itself. Sorry to go so long on this, but here's a really interesting passage (translation Helen Zimmern):
"163. The Earnestness of Handicraft - Do not talk of gifts, of inborn talents! We could mention great men of all kinds who were but little gifted. But they obtained greatness, became 'geniuses' (as far as they are called), through qualities of the lack of which nobody who is conscious of them likes to speak. They all had that thorough earnestness for work which learns first how to form the different parts perfectly before it ventures to make a great whole; they gave themselves time for this, because they took more pleasure in doing small, accessory things well than in the effect of a dazzling whole. For instance, the recipe for becoming a good novelist is easily given, but the carrying out of the recipe presupposes qualities which we are in the habit of overlooking when we say, 'I have not sufficient talent.' Make a hundred or more sketches of novel-plots, none more than two pages long, but of such clearness that every word in them is necessary; write down anecdotes every day until you learn to find the most pregnant, most effective form; never weary of collecting and delineating human types and X characters; above all, narrate things as often as possible and listen to narrations with a sharp eye and ear for the effect upon other people present; travel like a landscape painter and a designer of costumes; take from different sciences everything that is artistically effective, if it be well represented; finally meditate on the motives for human actions, scorn not even the smallest point of instruction on this subject, and collect similar matters by day and night. Spend some ten years in these varios exercises: then the creations of your study may be allowed to see the light of day."
That he places the investment at 10 years is interesting, because I think that and 10,000 hours is what Malcolm Gladwell advocated for, and is what has taken hold of as the necessity for expertise (although it's not a universally accepted theory). I have to suspect Gladwell noted a lot of people like Nietzche saying the same thing, and that's where he got the idea.
Since I don't agree with Nietzsche about the process, and do not think it's just about intense time on task, I can also say that I do believe in expertise in the young, at least as a possibility and occasional development. I understand that it doesn't mathematically seem possible that they could be among the best in their given field, but you earlier had a post about magic, right? I think there can be an intense drinking in of a subject by a young person that is unfathomably deep and undertaken most unconsciously. They would never approach their subject so intensely if they thought about whether they wanted to do this beforehand, because it is a kind of madness to be so consumed with something. It is not at all a social or aware thing to do. But that is the advantage someone of any age can have over someone who has mere experience.
I think expertise applies more to specific skills, to sciences, than it does to art, and maybe that its why you are dubious of the concept, because where you (M.M.) are most remarkable and seem most driven is towards areas which are not black and white and cannot be judged simply.
A thought I have is that the more one believes in expertise, the less one tends to believe in genius. I recently read Nietzsche's "All Too Human." He, of course, did not believe in divine genius, and I don't think even in genius itself. Sorry to go so long on this, but here's a really interesting passage (translation Helen Zimmern):
"163. The Earnestness of Handicraft - Do not talk of gifts, of inborn talents! We could mention great men of all kinds who were but little gifted. But they obtained greatness, became 'geniuses' (as far as they are called), through qualities of the lack of which nobody who is conscious of them likes to speak. They all had that thorough earnestness for work which learns first how to form the different parts perfectly before it ventures to make a great whole; they gave themselves time for this, because they took more pleasure in doing small, accessory things well than in the effect of a dazzling whole. For instance, the recipe for becoming a good novelist is easily given, but the carrying out of the recipe presupposes qualities which we are in the habit of overlooking when we say, 'I have not sufficient talent.' Make a hundred or more sketches of novel-plots, none more than two pages long, but of such clearness that every word in them is necessary; write down anecdotes every day until you learn to find the most pregnant, most effective form; never weary of collecting and delineating human types and X characters; above all, narrate things as often as possible and listen to narrations with a sharp eye and ear for the effect upon other people present; travel like a landscape painter and a designer of costumes; take from different sciences everything that is artistically effective, if it be well represented; finally meditate on the motives for human actions, scorn not even the smallest point of instruction on this subject, and collect similar matters by day and night. Spend some ten years in these varios exercises: then the creations of your study may be allowed to see the light of day."
That he places the investment at 10 years is interesting, because I think that and 10,000 hours is what Malcolm Gladwell advocated for, and is what has taken hold of as the necessity for expertise (although it's not a universally accepted theory). I have to suspect Gladwell noted a lot of people like Nietzche saying the same thing, and that's where he got the idea.
Since I don't agree with Nietzsche about the process, and do not think it's just about intense time on task, I can also say that I do believe in expertise in the young, at least as a possibility and occasional development. I understand that it doesn't mathematically seem possible that they could be among the best in their given field, but you earlier had a post about magic, right? I think there can be an intense drinking in of a subject by a young person that is unfathomably deep and undertaken most unconsciously. They would never approach their subject so intensely if they thought about whether they wanted to do this beforehand, because it is a kind of madness to be so consumed with something. It is not at all a social or aware thing to do. But that is the advantage someone of any age can have over someone who has mere experience.