For example, I don't know if you know who Woody Herman was, but he was considered to be one of the greatest claranette players ever to live and at the age of 76, after he had been playing for about 65 years, he stopped taking lessons, quite simply because he went into the hospital and died.

So here is a man whom we may consider and Expert in his field, and yet he continued to learn new things about his craft up untill 5 weeks before he died. When asked about his accoplishments, and called a Master of his instrament, he would comment that he hadden't mastered anything, and was still taking lessons. What the comment setting all of this off is saying is exactly this:

The very moment that you think of yourself as an Expert is the very moment that any expertness you had vanishes

Without realizing it you are agreeing with him.

lm

Hmm... I agree. I think that frequently people try to master a field; kind of implies that you are its master, that you control the field that you're studying.

I think a healthy approach is to be immersed in a field. Let it lead you where it wants you to go.

Ever notice that great developments in a field generally happen right after an "expert" in the field claims that further developments are impossible?

I'm an expert at nothing, except at being wrong. And I love it when people call my expertise at that into question... (It never happens, though...)

> Ever notice that great developments in a field generally > happen right after an "expert" in the field claims that > further developments are impossible?

Actually, I'd dispute that claim. It may *seem* that way, but it's more than likely just a heuristic. For example, it may seem like it always rains after you wash your car, but that's because you are not as likely to make a note when it rains and you haven't just washed your car. I don't know of any serious experts in a field who would make such a claim in the first place.

To be an extreme devil's advocate, I don't think that you are neccesarily likely to say/do something stupid just when you think you know it all. Sure, cockiness can lead to errors, but that does not change you level of knowledge on a subject. All that said, few experts would claim to "know everything".

</DEVIL's_ADVOCATE>

I strive for not the Beginner's Mind, but the Empty Mind.


To attain knowledge, add things every day. To attain wisdom, remove things every day.
Tao Te Ching


The day that we stop learning is the day that we die. So many people are not happy with their jobs, are not challenged in their daily tasks, do not have the wonderful feeling of Figuring Something Out, and still continue to work where they do. They are the opposite of the self-proclaimed Expert: both have stopped learning, one because she has told herself that there is nothing further to learn, and the other one has surpressed his desire to learn, and thus, to live. Live your life in the middle: constantly learning, seeking out new experiences, while realizing that in the grand scheme of things, you will have learned almost nothing. Yet walking around the entire world and ending up in your own backyard may not take you far, but what a trip that would be!

I can't entirely agree with that. Perhaps we could make the distinction between the genuine (and humble) expert and the soi-disant expert.

In my case, though I've only been using Perl for a year, I don't consider myself an apprentice. I don't consider myself a master, either. But the more I learn about the language, the more I realize that there are very few limits as to what can be done with it. For example, reading the chapter on Multiple Dispatch in Object Oriented Perl made me realize just how flexible the language is. It gets out of my way when I want to do something really tricky.

The thing about beginners is, while they don't know what is impossible, they also don't have the vocabulary or the experiential wisdom to know how to turn the impossible into the possible. There's a thin line to walk there. (Maybe that's the point all along.)