Discussion on:

Evaluate your consulting expertise using the Dreyfus model

It seems I'm always in a flux, slip-sliding between #3 (Competent) and #5 (Expert) with a lot of time spent in #4 (Proficient) as well. This can be all in one day, as the situation, or conditions change. I don't believe that anyone, especially me, is ever always an Expert in everything. It seems better to have a more balanced prospective in the approach and execution of possible solutions to any given problem.

Agreed. I know that I'm an expert in some areas, so I have to be careful about hubris in other areas where I'm not so well informed. The domain called "IT" is so broad that nobody is above Novice in all of it. That even goes for the smaller slice called software development.

specializing is a benefit. As much as possible of course, since you can't ignore other aspects completely.

just like 90% of those in IT are a windows specialist, knowing nothing about any other os, I'm a Linux specialist
gives me a very high 4 in all linux not expert in for i, with a competent level for the other posix systems. [ mainly because of the skill crossover between them ]

Yes, the old adage "jack of all trades, master of none" gets amplified by the diversity of our field. But as you said, we don't want to be completely ignorant of any area even though we focus on one or two. It's a difficult balancing act. Recently, I've been expanding my exposure, but it's a challenge to do that while maintaining my core expertise.

What is your core expertise?
Is it "stuff"?
If you have a concussion and go in a coma and come out, right as rain, in a year... how much of the "stuff" has changed?
Or two years? Five?
Or is there some other, more nebulous expertise that merely engenders the expertise of "stuff"?

The pattern of 3-4-5 pendling seems to me to indicate an underlying expertise with "situationals" thrown on top... I'm reluctant to say a 4 with +/- 1 for situational, as that assumes a relation more straightforward than I can reasonably presume.

Categories of "expertise" don't come in neat little packages that are all alike. So, to take a couple of extremes, a person who's an expert in sales could afford to go off-grid for years and come right back into it -- as long as they aren't required to know a specific product. OTOH, an expert in web development could suffer a serious setback from a six month absence.

In the coma case, a lot of stuff has changed.
But what is it?
Compare to realizing without a coma, that a new development has hit the arena, and it's changing things. You race. You catch up on it.
With the coma, you realize that something happened, and it's changed things... so, apart from the distance to race, is there a difference? Isn't it still catch-up?
And what skill goes into catching up?
I'm just exploring the limitations of the model... the definition of a "skill" is almost as impossible as the definition of "a word", and don't get me started on that one.

The first "the" was unnecessary.

The exploration is what gets you into a heap of trouble here, boy.

Frightens the natives.

Hm... let me open my idiolect and see; why did I write it like that.
Ah, yes, I use the definite article to delineate that there is a set of such limitations. If I leave it out you'll know that I'm not certain if there are limitations, I'm exploring possible limitations.
With "the" I'm already there, tracing them onto my map. Trying to dodge poison darts as I go.

Gluteus maximus.

Doesn't count unless you call it beforehand?
Still gotta make it stick!

By the way... are you a native to TR, the former techoslovakia, or it's predecessors?
I'm an intruder of course, but I thought you were too... in fact, it took me some effort not to say to you "Dr. Livingstone, I presume!".

Microsoft's Hotmail offers users the option of using a compressed image i email they are sending. IF the user is using Internet Explorer.

uh-oh, Microsoft's Internet Explorer (7 and 8 ) blocks a malicious Activex control from being run by Microsoft's Hotmail when they try to use a compressed image.

how does it happen that Microsoft is using malicious software in their website?

It's microsoft... it may not be "malicious" by definition (as intent is missing), but it's sure is harmful!

IE has a relatively new option to prevent programmatic alteration of the default search engine. I only use IE for Windows Update pre-Vista, but since they asked, I chose Google.

Now, when you install Windows Live Essentials (which I don't recommend, but some people want it), it tries to change the default search engine to Bing.

Bing -- IE slaps it down and proudly notifies you that it blocked a malicious attempt to change your default search engine.

The right hand slappeth the left hand.

same as IE slapping down Hotmail I guess.

and proficient, I've seen too many self proclaimed experts on their arses to be happy with that particlar accolade.

All the away across the scale of ability, remember your assumptions and interrogate them viciously every time they come round.

[Insert name here] knows what he's talking about

Remember it's punctuated with a ? not an !....

You might be right, but it will hurt if you don't check.

Never seen this definition before though, rings fairly true.

Always. With that goes humility -- being careful not to overestimate your own abilities, not to underestimate the complexity of the problem domain.

that they are assumptions... is a glimmer of something to be
Many people don't. #1 - 3 have big trouble with that, and it's not native to #4 either, although it begins to show there more often.

At least that's how I project it, being an emergence jockey.

is why remembering them is step one.

When Given A then B turns out to be C.

Maybe A is not given, there's no then, wasn't really B anyway and look again to see if it really was C.

I must admit I tend to assume I'm right, but I stop doing that as some small irritating fact indicates there's a miniscule possibility I might not be.

Logic, a really clever way of being wrong....

... but it's far too easy to apply incorrectly.

Usually has something to do with incorrect assumptions, or oversimplifying/misidentifying the phenomena observed, as you pointed out.

Check out old zeno...

The fact is - logic when applied cannot be wrong. But. A human, being equipped with a high-powered inductive/abductive brain, is incapable of performing logic. Even when emulating logic, a human is incapable of supplying it with the fundamental facts to operate on. We don't realize it, but all our facts have fuzzy edges... they're induced and abduced from all over the place, and we don't have a file allocation table to refer us to any "ding am sich".

So, yes, logic is the pure infallable - pure because it's totally free of abuse, being free of use too.


EDIT: If that was confusing, the point is this. No performer of "logic" actually performs logic. They emulate it, and jerry-rig it to take an unacceptable input. And in doing so, they become incapable of realizing that no, that wasn't logic. It's was, at best, lodgyc.

It's easy to use logic effectively when you account for the limits of human knowledge. You start every premise with "Assuming" or "Given" or some equally appropriate qualifier.

is like slapping a condom on an AK47 and calling it safe!

It's still as illegal as dividing by zero, because it gives an arbitrary result (corrupt method and input) disguised as a true result. The "given that" appears only before the "logic operation", never after. There's never a "+/- 3-and-a-half" or other indication of uncertainty after the fact.

You know how many straw men like zeno are made of this stuff...

1. "Logically valid" and "straw man fallacy" are mutually exclusive. Your argument is, itself, afflicted by a bit of an implicit straw man fallacy, I suspect.

2. Stating assumptions behind premises clearly serves a very real, useful purpose -- as it allows people to arrive at meaningful conclusions given a set of working assumptions. Without that kind of argument construction, we as a social species would find it quite difficult to get anything done.

. . . which is probably why so much that could get done doesn't, since people all too often forget to establish some kind of reasonable set of working assumptions and develop an argument from there.

edit: typo -- one missing letter

we just wing it and call it logic in hindsight.
That's what we do best anyway; using our brains for what they're doing anyway : inducing, abducing... and calling it deducing all the same.
We lie to ourselves about this too. Rationalization is a very natural activity.

It takes a lot of discipline to narrow down the error margins on human logic. Many are incapable of it, and most of those aren't aware that it is so.
So, logically, logic is to be distrusted, especially coming from the other guy.

Sorry, just a hobby horse of mine. You've been practicing controlled response, haven't you? It's appreciated

we just wing it and call it logic in hindsight.

Speak for yourself. When I discover I'm working on presumption alone, I examine the circumstances for a reasonable set of working assumptions, and build on those assumptions to construct a logical framework for action. If you just play it by ear and bias, and self-justify later, that's a personal problem -- not a species-wide modus operandi.

We lie to ourselves about this too. Rationalization is a very natural activity.

"What you mean 'we', paleface?"

Rationalization is certainly common, but "natural" is a word too loaded with contradictory connotations to be meaningful here. Despite that, you're setting it up as some kind of proof of concept. I don't buy it.

Rationalization is about to fail you, because it won't convince me of anything in this case. You'll have to actually take a logical approach. Given your goal appears to be to convince me that taking a logical approach is effectively impossible, I guess you're SOL, because you'll either end up changing your own mind or failing to come up with an argument.

So, logically, logic is to be distrusted, especially coming from the other guy.

Incorrect.

Fallacy is to be distrusted.

Assumptions are to be detected, defined, and either agreed or distrusted.

Logic itself is fine. If it is actually logic, it is -- by definition -- valid.

You've been practicing controlled response, haven't you? It's appreciated

You just haven't been insulting in this subthread -- until now. Have you been practicing unwarranted condescension?

Does the person know the difference between an assumption and a presumption?

(FYI ... assumptions can never bite you ... presumptions might ... but not knowing the difference will.)

(Sorry, hot button ... )

Jaqui and I have a similar specialty and I leverage it in my consultancy to reduce license costs for the clients.

The challenge I face, as I bet a fair number of you do, is even in 2010, many of the people I work for don't have the vaguest idea about what goes in to business class I.T. Their philosophy is, "It's a computer so you should know what to do...and it shouldn't take more that a couple of mouse clicks to do it because that's all computer work is." In their minds, we're just hoarding a bag of tricks that we won't share with them.

I recently told two clients a contractor would need to be called for cabling. Both of them thought that should be part of my job and one of them quite vigorously told me so. I told him I'd gladly help him get one. I already know two that do excellent work.

Understanding that we're experts in some things but not all is what I consider necessary humility but in the minds of these clients it contributes to my incompetence.

Where do I rate myself? If I didn't know I was good at what I did I wouldn't do it. Some of my clients would call me an expert. Some might not even call me novice. I have found the technical part of running the business to be the easiest part by far.

that it's those wobbling between 2 and 3 that will do anything that feed the belief that we should know everything.

The only reason I would be willing to do cabling, I have done a few years of work WITH an electrician doing cabling. [ 1.5 mile run of voice and data cables from central server to POS terminals, multi-floor cabling in high-rise buildings for mini-computer systems and full electrical installations. ]
if I didn't have those years of working with a qualified professional, I wouldn't touch cabling at all.

Yes, there comes a moment in many people's progression of learning when they suddenly think it's all easy and self-evident if only they learn a little more. Not unlike the adolescent view of life.

After 23+ years of working in various capacities, I would put myself pretty much at 5, but only because I know how much I don't know. I am successful because I recognize that EVERY box, network, installation, AND user is part of a completely unique ecosystem. An update, a new application, a "simple" HW change, can all tip the balance. I learn something new every day, and what I learn gets tucked into my brain, increasing the base of knowledge and building the integrity of the intuition--for what we do is as much art as science--I impose on each new problem. It is why I have been able to fix the unfixable.

All of that, and I am REALLY good at forming Google searches That skill can make almost anyone look like a genius!

That forming Google searches is one of the key skills for the future, but in all likelihood Google will figure out a way to do that for us before long. Then it will become a lost art, like rapidly threading mag tapes.

Your description of your own level of skill suggests to me that you fit solidly into level 4. Of course, I don't know what field that is; it clearly can't be in all fields.

There are a couple of narrow IT subfields wherein I might rate myself a 4 -- though maybe I flatter myself. It drops from there. I strongly suspect Sterling is a solid 5 in exactly one subfield, which is really an incredible achievement; it takes a lifetime for most Experts to reach that level, though a really talented guy can hit it in 10 years if well-focused, and under very extreme, high-stakes, high-pressure conditions one might get there in even less time. Most people take 10 years to get to 3 (Competent), and think they're experts at that point.

I think I was an Expert in the Dreyfus model for all of about three years. It tapered off rapidly after that, because I didn't really have the practice to maintain it. These days, I probably hover around 3.5 on a good day, a solid 3 (Competent) the rest of the time. I don't expect it to drop beyond that, but I don't really do the kind of driving that would push me up to the Proficient level again. My increasing use of a motorcycle might give me a little bit of a boost, at least in terms of how often I get up around 3.5, I suppose.

I suspect that maybe 2% of people here at TechRepublic are Dreyfus model Experts in any particular, very narrow subfield of IT, frankly, though probably 50% or more think they rate Expert in some IT-related field. Contrary to my reputation amongst my detractors, I have nowhere near the arrogance to be one of those people who think that highly of themselves. I just think that poorly of some of my detractors, that wherever I sit on the Dreyfus scale on a particular subject, they probably sit a level or two lower. I'm a cynic -- not a megalomaniac.

There's a tendency for one's incompetence to cause one to be blind to the nature of the expertise they have not reached. People tend to overrate their skill level on the Dreyfus scale, not because they're stupid (though some surely are), but because they simply cannot see the next level in some respect, and as a result think they're already there. If you have never reached the level of Expert in any skill and thought long and hard about what made you so good at it, you may never be able to recognize the dividing line between Proficient and Expert.

I have forgotten more about driving in adverse conditions than I know about IT security. That's a fact, not a grand proclamation for effect. I know, without a doubt, that I have never even approached that level of Expert where IT security is concerned -- and part of the reason I know that is the fact that I have achieved (and lost) that level of skill in another field.

I doubt I will ever achieve that level of expertise in IT or information security, at least within current expected lifespans. On the other hand, being only an Advanced Beginner on the Dreyfus scale as a programmer, I look forward to some day reaching the level of Proficient, and maybe even Expert if I really focus. Writing in English is another area I want to reach that level, and believe I might -- within more than one subfield.

Feel free to disregard my thoughts on the matter, of course. I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Flirt with Five, as does your English.

I can tell, overflying on my broomstick.

Hopefully, you aren't flying Regimental style.

My core talent tends to lie in the realm of being what some call a "systems thinker" -- common amongst INTJ and INTP Jung types. That sort of thing helps me analyze matters such as complex systems, systematic construction principles, and so on. When discussing a topic where I'm normally around the level of an Advanced Beginner or Competent, I occasionally find myself inspired by that talent to "flirt with five", as you put it.

I could probably excel quite easily at theoretical research psychology, and I do have some interest in the field. Alas, my greater tendency is to lean toward matters more technically and ethically oriented. One is prone to being a long, hard slog toward greatness even for those talented, and the other doomed to obscurity and ridicule because there's no room for correctness in populism.

I keep telling someone else, lies not with those who are looking, but with excellence no matter who -- if any -- are looking.

One matter of excellence, I see from my height, is this "realm of being" (I know; I hijacked it) which "some call". That realm lies not with those who are looking. Bend autonomous excellence to that.

The juxtaposition of "autonomous" and "excellence" is something you pick up from all-weather broomstick flying.

While your knowledge base in the field might justify your humility, your perceptiveness fits with higher numbers.

I loved to play it as a child -- and reversi, too, in the form of the Othello branded game. I remember more about Othello's rules than backgammon's, but I don't think I found it as fascinating and exciting.

These days, I basically don't remember jack about how play actually worked in backgammon.

... rules are deceptively simple. At first glance, it appears that a good understanding of probability is all you would need. But when played between humans, it gets far more interesting than that.

Then you go and play it against the computer and find that all your strategies don't work.

aren't using a Dreyfuss definition.

More like Mr M Oron's in many cases.

"knows just enough about it to snow prospects into paying more."

Best Practices and #1 fit together?

... are meant for #1.

Actually, they can apply all the way up through #3. They begin to annoy #4, and they positively obstruct the work of #5.

Puts you, where?

If best practices are what the consultant imposes upon the clients personnel, then maybe it can be seen in their eyes: relief at guidance, tacit acceptance, a glimmer of questions, mild annoyance at percieved patronization and ... a glint of cold disrespect, perhaps? I guess an expert might be overbearing, but if forced to practice by rote...?

"clients personnel"

I realize you may have dashed it off -- writing in a big hurry, probably, given your profligacy.

From my headline-writing days, should you be interested, you squeeze the language for all it has, without stepping discretely or indiscreetly over any lines.

Whereby, you economize. You say, "client personnel", without violating anything or stepping on pedant toes.

I leave both the singular and possibly plural placement of (an) apostrophe at your door for later, should you contend with me about this.

Just caught my eye. What can I say.