Selection Effects and the Real World

摘要: Attempting to determine the basis of expertise by seeing what experts have in common is a flawed research strategy. The strategy attractive, be sure, and we not been immune its charms (Shanteau, 1988). problem that cannot infer those commonalities are unique experts. Nonexperts may also share identified characteristics. data gleaned from examining can at best suggest provocative hypotheses. flaw merely logical nicety; it cripples attempt attribute causality. Whether practice deliberate or informal, whether lasts for 10years, 10000hours, vague long time do matter. Even if accepted EP’s (the expert performance approach) evidence supporting idea no one who does meet criterion becomes an expert, justified conclusion would only necessary expertise. sufficient determined showing everyone meets attains status. selection process imposed studying already deemed rules out possibility establishing sufficiency. A crucial distinction between PBA (our performancebased assessment EP meant performance. For us, refers behavior, contender actually does. Discrimination consistency observable properties behavior. EP, sometimes focus on but more often, outcomes, with results attributed contender’s Running speed chess moves behavioral measures. Those classics far removed indirect assessments proposed Ericsson’s (2014) Table 1. Consider study which analyzed priority ratings occupational therapy. Ericsson suggests assessing rater’s skill following applicants’ lives without In order that, analyst must quantify quality life each applicant. It obvious how objectively even subjectively. An associated question when should take place; taken after therapy period, fixed number years, death? Contrasting people did get problematic, because assignment based recommendation. might judged either too healthy need impaired benefit it. There fundamental built into correspondence (to outcomes) approach. just possible could affected circumstances events unrelated applicants received variability introduced such confounding threatens integrity between-groups comparisons. goal understand processes employed dispute ambition. Rather, prior step, empirically. Experimental control allows valid comparisons across contenders, thereby allowing us answer ‘whose behavior exhibits expertise? ’‘ Fictitious’ stimuli enhance experimental facilitate exploration stimulus information influences judgments.