Do I have a shot at being the expert?
April 11, 2010 10:00 PM Subscribe
Inspired by this question: I'm 26, let's say I wanted to become a world renown expert in a serious field of study in the next 10 years (or less). Is there a discipline I could start now, dedicate several years and concentrated study and become good enough to be the go-to expert quoted on the news?
I received a B.A. in one of the humanities from a pretty good university. At this point I have lost contact with academia and my former professors. What would the steps be and would I always be at a disadvantage to colleagues who knew what they wanted to be at a a younger age? Is it possibly too late to become not just successful but a leading authority on a subject? Are their any examples of experts who started their related studies later in life?
Let's say I don't have a preference as to which field I would study.
I received a B.A. in one of the humanities from a pretty good university. At this point I have lost contact with academia and my former professors. What would the steps be and would I always be at a disadvantage to colleagues who knew what they wanted to be at a a younger age? Is it possibly too late to become not just successful but a leading authority on a subject? Are their any examples of experts who started their related studies later in life?
Let's say I don't have a preference as to which field I would study.
Age-based intellectual skills: Languages are harder to pick up as an adult, so you're a disadvantage in studies where knowing another language, or many, is needed.
Otherwise - it's certainly possible to become the world's expert on a topic, provided the topic is sufficiently narrow. You could become the world's expert on Little Known Poet X from the early 19th century in rural Scotland, or something of a similar specificity, with just a few years' time. In a way, this is what grad school in the humanities is often about - getting that really deep expertise in a very narrow subject. If someone has written a dissertation on a subject, they're often one of only a handful of people in the world who are true experts on their narrow topic.
Now, you say "can I become the person interviewed on the news" - there's the rub. For so many of these really narrow topics, nobody cares, so there is little demand for the expertise. Occasionally events conspire to raise interest in an obscure topic, so maybe you can become the world expert on narrow topic and then conspire to have Dan Brown write a book related to it, etc.
Becoming a wider expert just takes correspondingly more time, to read everything, and a great memory.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:10 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Otherwise - it's certainly possible to become the world's expert on a topic, provided the topic is sufficiently narrow. You could become the world's expert on Little Known Poet X from the early 19th century in rural Scotland, or something of a similar specificity, with just a few years' time. In a way, this is what grad school in the humanities is often about - getting that really deep expertise in a very narrow subject. If someone has written a dissertation on a subject, they're often one of only a handful of people in the world who are true experts on their narrow topic.
Now, you say "can I become the person interviewed on the news" - there's the rub. For so many of these really narrow topics, nobody cares, so there is little demand for the expertise. Occasionally events conspire to raise interest in an obscure topic, so maybe you can become the world expert on narrow topic and then conspire to have Dan Brown write a book related to it, etc.
Becoming a wider expert just takes correspondingly more time, to read everything, and a great memory.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:10 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Just want to say briefly that being the go-to expert quoted on the news is very often not the same thing as the go-to expert quoted in the field, or most respected in the field, etc. I think the former is often more a function of how telegenic, self-promoting, etc. you are, or your ability to explain your field to laymen.
AFAIK, it's difficult to become the latter kind of expert in math later on in life; apparently, most mathematicians do their best work earlier on in their careers. In the areas I'm most familiar with (social sciences) it doesn't seem at all that you have to start young.
posted by Ashley801 at 10:11 PM on April 11, 2010 [5 favorites]
AFAIK, it's difficult to become the latter kind of expert in math later on in life; apparently, most mathematicians do their best work earlier on in their careers. In the areas I'm most familiar with (social sciences) it doesn't seem at all that you have to start young.
posted by Ashley801 at 10:11 PM on April 11, 2010 [5 favorites]
You don't get quoted by being the world's biggest expert. You get quoted by having people whose job it is, or by making it your own job, to get your view in the paper. Another alternative is to be recruited as a spokesperson because you make a credible messenger for a political message (e.g., Joe the Plumber). So yes, you can easily reach a position where you will be quoted if you just make it a goal, particularly if you care enough about a topic to end up on one side of a debate. Tell us more about yourself for more targeted advice.
posted by salvia at 10:26 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by salvia at 10:26 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
A doctorate is only three years hard work. Pick any little-studied area and get going. Too easy.
Of course, whether the TV station wants to interview you on your topic is another matter.
posted by wilful at 10:27 PM on April 11, 2010
Of course, whether the TV station wants to interview you on your topic is another matter.
posted by wilful at 10:27 PM on April 11, 2010
This is entirely do-able.
My SO has become a world expert in a somewhat-particular area of history within the last five years. The trick is to be quite specific.
posted by pompomtom at 10:28 PM on April 11, 2010
My SO has become a world expert in a somewhat-particular area of history within the last five years. The trick is to be quite specific.
posted by pompomtom at 10:28 PM on April 11, 2010
(also: "renowned")
posted by pompomtom at 10:38 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by pompomtom at 10:38 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
In all seriousness, start with spelling.
posted by JimN2TAW at 10:49 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by JimN2TAW at 10:49 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
1) If you don't care about what field you study, you'll be at a huge disadvantage when you're up against people who are passionately interested in whatever subject you choose.
2) They rarely quote experts on the news.
3) You can however learn a lot in ten years (though you won't get a Ph.D. in three).
posted by washburn at 10:57 PM on April 11, 2010 [4 favorites]
2) They rarely quote experts on the news.
3) You can however learn a lot in ten years (though you won't get a Ph.D. in three).
posted by washburn at 10:57 PM on April 11, 2010 [4 favorites]
Nthing Ashley and Salvia. I work in PR and was a journalist for many years, and believe me, knowledge is the last attribute journalists look for when they want to quote someone. In a rough order that might skip around depending on topic, urgency and budget:
1. Availability
2. Flexibility (will they say what we want?)
3. Talent (media talent, that is - will they say it well?)
4. Cost
5. Credibility (note, nothing to do with knowledge. Do they work for a famous company? Are they famous themselves? Do they have a job title that sounds impressive?)
6. Knowledge.
You wanna get quoted on something, it's easy - know enough about *whatever* to string a sentence together and work mainly on the other four qualities (see the proliferation of social media "experts").
If your question is can you become a world-class expert in something within 10 years, definitely. If you pick something obscure, even faster.
posted by smoke at 10:57 PM on April 11, 2010 [3 favorites]
1. Availability
2. Flexibility (will they say what we want?)
3. Talent (media talent, that is - will they say it well?)
4. Cost
5. Credibility (note, nothing to do with knowledge. Do they work for a famous company? Are they famous themselves? Do they have a job title that sounds impressive?)
6. Knowledge.
You wanna get quoted on something, it's easy - know enough about *whatever* to string a sentence together and work mainly on the other four qualities (see the proliferation of social media "experts").
If your question is can you become a world-class expert in something within 10 years, definitely. If you pick something obscure, even faster.
posted by smoke at 10:57 PM on April 11, 2010 [3 favorites]
Do you want to BE the expert or do you want to be the guy people THINK is the expert?
Because there's a difference. Look how many people think Edison invented the lightbulb, for example. So self-promotion and networking are very important for getting your name out there. You'll have to know what you're talking about, of course. You'll need to be able to impress people who know the topic well. But you'll also need to popularize your ideas. Get out there.
Now, as far as what topic to tackle? Well, what are your skills and interests? Maybe you should become the world's foremost expert on classifying areas of expertise. Get meta.
posted by delmoi at 11:00 PM on April 11, 2010
Because there's a difference. Look how many people think Edison invented the lightbulb, for example. So self-promotion and networking are very important for getting your name out there. You'll have to know what you're talking about, of course. You'll need to be able to impress people who know the topic well. But you'll also need to popularize your ideas. Get out there.
Now, as far as what topic to tackle? Well, what are your skills and interests? Maybe you should become the world's foremost expert on classifying areas of expertise. Get meta.
posted by delmoi at 11:00 PM on April 11, 2010
Best answer: Can you become an expert in ten years? Yes; it's what a PhD essentially is: you pick a subject and read all the past accumulated knowledge on the subject, and look for unsolved problems or other known unknowns. Check out Hamming's advice on the subject of great research.
Keep in mind that not all experts are world famous experts. Many 'experts' don't do research but instead process research publications and write for broader audience than conference proceedings. I'm thinking of Don Knuth, but only because he's in my field; I'm sure there are similar people for other fields. These are the people who news media quotes, and theirs are the books people in the field read. I'm guessing most scientists you'll see on the Colbert Report fall into this category.
If your goal is to have a reputation for being a smart person / expert, it's doable. Get a PhD, write a book, do a lecture circuit and keep reading as much research as possible.
posted by pwnguin at 11:01 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Keep in mind that not all experts are world famous experts. Many 'experts' don't do research but instead process research publications and write for broader audience than conference proceedings. I'm thinking of Don Knuth, but only because he's in my field; I'm sure there are similar people for other fields. These are the people who news media quotes, and theirs are the books people in the field read. I'm guessing most scientists you'll see on the Colbert Report fall into this category.
If your goal is to have a reputation for being a smart person / expert, it's doable. Get a PhD, write a book, do a lecture circuit and keep reading as much research as possible.
posted by pwnguin at 11:01 PM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
My advice is that the right gamble to take would be to focus on something pretty contemporary, and be as academically serious about it as you can. You're better off studying hour-long cable television dramas or internet cafe culture in East Asia than you are studying Robert Burns or the last battles of WWI cavalry.
The gamble part of it is whether or not the contemporary topic you choose continues to be important over the course of a long career; this will depend in part upon factors beyond your control (events in the future) and in part on hard work (promotion of your field of study and self-promotion). It will also require a bit of self-starting, as it's unlikely that your school will be able to give you a real background in what you want to learn, and their contribution might be limited to classes in theory.
The real, secret reason I'm posting, though, is to say that while this is interesting as a hypothetical, the desire to find an available, obtainable 'expert role' sounds to me like a pretty awful way to motivate your graduate work, and one which will have you spending several years studying something that you will grow to loathe while producing fashionable publications for all the wrong reasons. In practice, the way other people think of you probably directly occupies about 10% of your life; the part where you're actually talking to other people about you, getting judged by them, etc. The rest -- the vast majority -- is what you think of what you choose to think about.
posted by Valet at 11:15 PM on April 11, 2010 [3 favorites]
The gamble part of it is whether or not the contemporary topic you choose continues to be important over the course of a long career; this will depend in part upon factors beyond your control (events in the future) and in part on hard work (promotion of your field of study and self-promotion). It will also require a bit of self-starting, as it's unlikely that your school will be able to give you a real background in what you want to learn, and their contribution might be limited to classes in theory.
The real, secret reason I'm posting, though, is to say that while this is interesting as a hypothetical, the desire to find an available, obtainable 'expert role' sounds to me like a pretty awful way to motivate your graduate work, and one which will have you spending several years studying something that you will grow to loathe while producing fashionable publications for all the wrong reasons. In practice, the way other people think of you probably directly occupies about 10% of your life; the part where you're actually talking to other people about you, getting judged by them, etc. The rest -- the vast majority -- is what you think of what you choose to think about.
posted by Valet at 11:15 PM on April 11, 2010 [3 favorites]
Make sure to read that whole thread before you do anything rash.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 11:19 PM on April 11, 2010
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 11:19 PM on April 11, 2010
I would say its doable, but you need to pick a topic that you can excel at (which often means you need to be interested to at least some degree) and it needs to be something that is fairly sexy in terms fo people actually wanting you on the telly. For example, an expert in sorting mine extract for minerals is not likely to get asked as much as someone who is top in something the media ia already interested in/thinks is sexy/sees regular major changes which get media attention (one of my colleagues has had a fair amount of national tv time on renewable energy policy). It won't hurt if you have a face more suited for tv, can string a sentence together and express complex ideas in simple sentences (though this is another skill that can be learned). In terms of getting on tv in many areas it won't hurt if you're a woman because tv producers like to have at least one on a panel and there are deficits in the gender balance in many areas. (Of course, in my country at least, the downside of this will not be getting paid as much.)
Before that though, there's the working hard, the certain amount of luck in getting on board with a hot boss academic who can help you out, guide you to papers, and who doesn't turn out to be a dick.
posted by biffa at 1:59 AM on April 12, 2010
Before that though, there's the working hard, the certain amount of luck in getting on board with a hot boss academic who can help you out, guide you to papers, and who doesn't turn out to be a dick.
posted by biffa at 1:59 AM on April 12, 2010
Best answer: There are two ways to look at your question. 1) I want to know more than everyone else on a subject - in what area would this be easiest? and 2) What field should I go into if I want to get on TV a lot as "the expert".
To answer the second part first - be the dissenting voice that they feel they always need to present. The person who says there is no global warming, the Earth is flat or the Civil War never happened (Previously on MeFi). You do need to pick something that gets on the news a lot, where there is some debate, but where the dissenting voice is not widely perceived as insane. You will need some luck here. It may require you believing the Earth is flat.
For the first part, you can either study really hard, or pick something that people don't know much about, or think they do, and then stopped looking.
And now a story: In about a month my corporate masters are going to pack me in foam peanuts and ship me to San Francisco to present a talk on my little thing. My little thing is a weird impurity assay that the FDA requires (and they should) but because of its flaky behavior, it has kind of become the red headed stepchild of bioanalytic chemistry.
While the number of people who care about what I'm going to present on probably numbers in the thousands, I suspect I am going to blow some of those people away with somecutting edge hundred year old theory. (No, really.)
What has happened is that early on someone said some things in a paper on the field that seemed intuitively right, but only told part of the story. Since that time people have been retelling this to one another and never looking at first principals. At some point I was looking at someone's data, noticed something anomalous, decided that I really had no good intuitive understanding of how worked and that I needed to fix that.
I'll let you know how it goes, but I'm pretty sure the folks from the TV station will not call.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:08 AM on April 12, 2010 [6 favorites]
To answer the second part first - be the dissenting voice that they feel they always need to present. The person who says there is no global warming, the Earth is flat or the Civil War never happened (Previously on MeFi). You do need to pick something that gets on the news a lot, where there is some debate, but where the dissenting voice is not widely perceived as insane. You will need some luck here. It may require you believing the Earth is flat.
For the first part, you can either study really hard, or pick something that people don't know much about, or think they do, and then stopped looking.
And now a story: In about a month my corporate masters are going to pack me in foam peanuts and ship me to San Francisco to present a talk on my little thing. My little thing is a weird impurity assay that the FDA requires (and they should) but because of its flaky behavior, it has kind of become the red headed stepchild of bioanalytic chemistry.
While the number of people who care about what I'm going to present on probably numbers in the thousands, I suspect I am going to blow some of those people away with some
What has happened is that early on someone said some things in a paper on the field that seemed intuitively right, but only told part of the story. Since that time people have been retelling this to one another and never looking at first principals. At some point I was looking at someone's data, noticed something anomalous, decided that I really had no good intuitive understanding of how worked and that I needed to fix that.
I'll let you know how it goes, but I'm pretty sure the folks from the TV station will not call.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:08 AM on April 12, 2010 [6 favorites]
All you really need to do is position yourself as an expert to a bunch of PR people, who will in turn brand you as an expert and pitch you to journalists who are on deadline. That's all you really need. You can do this without a PhD even, but you'd have to do it in a field where PhDs and master's programs aren't established or aren't well established, and that you don't have to compete much in. Alternatively, you can become a journalist and write a lot of news articles then promote yourself as an expert in whatever your beat is.
posted by anniecat at 6:10 AM on April 12, 2010
posted by anniecat at 6:10 AM on April 12, 2010
If you don't care about what field you study, you'll be at a huge disadvantage when you're up against people who are passionately interested in whatever subject you choose.
This 100X. What do you care about? Start there.
posted by applemeat at 6:13 AM on April 12, 2010
This 100X. What do you care about? Start there.
posted by applemeat at 6:13 AM on April 12, 2010
This is vastly easier if you're a white male. Back when I (white male) and a black female colleague were teaching different sections of an engineering class, the difference in the students' behavior was extraordinary to watch. The students responded enthusiastically to my lectures and rather belligerently to hers -- even though we used the same slides and notes! She then had to start speaking more formally and imposing stricter policies to try to get a little respect, while I had te privilege of keeping things more congenial. I suspect a typical television or live audience of laymen would respond similarly.
I would guess being a little older would help too. I recently saw a presentation by a "distinguished guest" whose main qualification seemed to be that he was a very handsome, articulate man in his 60s.
posted by miyabo at 8:35 AM on April 12, 2010
I would guess being a little older would help too. I recently saw a presentation by a "distinguished guest" whose main qualification seemed to be that he was a very handsome, articulate man in his 60s.
posted by miyabo at 8:35 AM on April 12, 2010
It's not too late according to the 10,000 hour rule.
The 10,000 hour rule basically states that you can become an expert at almost anything if you dedicate 10,000 hours to one particular art. According to Malcolm Gladwell in his book, Outliers, even people who we perceive as geniuses in their trade are said to have applied this rule at some point in their life before becoming famous, like Mozart, Bill Gates and the Beetles.
Essentially, you'd have to practice your art 20 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, for 10 years to meet the 10,000 hour guideline. So if you have the time, the dedication and the persistence, of course you can become an expert.
posted by nikkorizz at 9:04 AM on April 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
The 10,000 hour rule basically states that you can become an expert at almost anything if you dedicate 10,000 hours to one particular art. According to Malcolm Gladwell in his book, Outliers, even people who we perceive as geniuses in their trade are said to have applied this rule at some point in their life before becoming famous, like Mozart, Bill Gates and the Beetles.
Essentially, you'd have to practice your art 20 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, for 10 years to meet the 10,000 hour guideline. So if you have the time, the dedication and the persistence, of course you can become an expert.
posted by nikkorizz at 9:04 AM on April 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
A doctorate is only three years hard work. Pick any little-studied area and get going. Too easy.
Not in America, at least not at any institution I've ever heard of.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 12:58 PM on April 12, 2010
Not in America, at least not at any institution I've ever heard of.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 12:58 PM on April 12, 2010
The 10,000 hour rule basically states that you can become an expert at almost anything if you dedicate 10,000 hours to one particular art.
I quote this rule too and it's an encouraging one. However, the 10,000 hours are necessary but not sufficient. What is also needed is "deliberate practice". That means you have to get plenty of swift feedback from a good teacher. And you have to practice the essential techniques of your chosen field....
posted by storybored at 1:42 PM on April 12, 2010
I quote this rule too and it's an encouraging one. However, the 10,000 hours are necessary but not sufficient. What is also needed is "deliberate practice". That means you have to get plenty of swift feedback from a good teacher. And you have to practice the essential techniques of your chosen field....
posted by storybored at 1:42 PM on April 12, 2010
solipsophistocracy: "Not in America, at least not at any institution I've ever heard of."
Walk out of the humanities ivory tower for a bit and you'll enter a different world. I know tons of Engineering and Science Professors who got their PhD that fast. My boss at KSU did 2 years at HP with his masters before returning for a PhD in 3 years. Granted, I don't think I can name drop him.
Another guy in the same dept I just looked up did his in like 4 years. Then he did some postdoc work with Milner, and chairs a bunch of European conferences. I didn't actually know that until today. But even this guy won't be seeing new coverage any time soon. Hell, all I knew about him before today is that he taught Data Structures to a hundred undergraduates every semester.
Both of these guys were in America, at institutions you know, working at a public university you should know. I suspect philosophy and other humanities degrees are in an eddy in the tide of graduation flows. PhD candidates earn a miserable stipend that disappears upon graduation, and usually face adjunct teaching as their most relevant postgrad opportunity. And given that grant money is a mere trickle, I doubt these departments can survive without sources of captive, cheap labor, so there's likely no institutional push. So probably, the question's answer isn't going to be 'become an expert in an obscure branch of philosophy!'. I hope this isn't too ego-shattering.
posted by pwnguin at 3:43 PM on April 12, 2010
Walk out of the humanities ivory tower for a bit and you'll enter a different world. I know tons of Engineering and Science Professors who got their PhD that fast. My boss at KSU did 2 years at HP with his masters before returning for a PhD in 3 years. Granted, I don't think I can name drop him.
Another guy in the same dept I just looked up did his in like 4 years. Then he did some postdoc work with Milner, and chairs a bunch of European conferences. I didn't actually know that until today. But even this guy won't be seeing new coverage any time soon. Hell, all I knew about him before today is that he taught Data Structures to a hundred undergraduates every semester.
Both of these guys were in America, at institutions you know, working at a public university you should know. I suspect philosophy and other humanities degrees are in an eddy in the tide of graduation flows. PhD candidates earn a miserable stipend that disappears upon graduation, and usually face adjunct teaching as their most relevant postgrad opportunity. And given that grant money is a mere trickle, I doubt these departments can survive without sources of captive, cheap labor, so there's likely no institutional push. So probably, the question's answer isn't going to be 'become an expert in an obscure branch of philosophy!'. I hope this isn't too ego-shattering.
posted by pwnguin at 3:43 PM on April 12, 2010
Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years
Researchers. . .have shown it takes about ten years to develop expertise in any of a wide variety of areas, including chess playing, music composition, telegraph operation, painting, piano playing, swimming, tennis, and research in neuropsychology and topology.
posted by mlis at 4:08 PM on April 12, 2010
Researchers. . .have shown it takes about ten years to develop expertise in any of a wide variety of areas, including chess playing, music composition, telegraph operation, painting, piano playing, swimming, tennis, and research in neuropsychology and topology.
posted by mlis at 4:08 PM on April 12, 2010
Realize that if you don't have passion and/or personal experience (AKA ex-addict on addiction) you are always going to be second pick compared to the person who does. [*not* suggesting you become an addict for this reason]. For the media, the person who has passion, professional expertise *and* personal experience (doctor who researches addiction who is also ex-addict), will always be the first choice.
However, in the field, the person with personal experience plus expertise will often be looked down upon a bit because of this.
People rarely become the "go to" person on something because they set out to do so. I've become this person, basically, on teen boot camps because no one else bothered. But I did it because I was horrified that teen boot camps were a billion dollar industry and no one had exposed the fact that no evidence supports their efficacy for helping and lots of evidence suggests that they do harm-- not because I wanted to be "teen tough love girl."
posted by Maias at 4:59 PM on April 12, 2010
However, in the field, the person with personal experience plus expertise will often be looked down upon a bit because of this.
People rarely become the "go to" person on something because they set out to do so. I've become this person, basically, on teen boot camps because no one else bothered. But I did it because I was horrified that teen boot camps were a billion dollar industry and no one had exposed the fact that no evidence supports their efficacy for helping and lots of evidence suggests that they do harm-- not because I wanted to be "teen tough love girl."
posted by Maias at 4:59 PM on April 12, 2010
Kid Charlemagne: While the number of people who care about what I'm going to present on probably numbers in the thousands, I suspect I am going to blow some of those people away with some cutting edge hundred year old theory. (No, really.)
What has happened is that early on someone said some things in a paper on the field that seemed intuitively right, but only told part of the story. Since that time people have been retelling this to one another and never looking at first principals. At some point I was looking at someone's data, noticed something anomalous, decided that I really had no good intuitive understanding of how worked and that I needed to fix that.
I was going to suggest looking for things along those lines; lots of amazing things I've been reading about lately have arisen because the following has happened:
1. decades ago, someone argued something that seemed intuitive
2. it got repeated over and over until everyone took it for granted that it was true, even if it was controversial or disputed at the time
3. as more and more research is done in a discipline, people spend more time learning about tiny, specialized pieces of the whole and loose sight of the basics and how those pieces ought to be connected
4. scattered problems arise in the discipline that don't make sense. No one seems to be figuring those things out because not that many people actually understand the big picture, and of those a ton still don't realize how weak the evidence actually is for a lot of things that have become gospel; when you're struggling to keep up with the latest research, you're not inclined to go back and check decades old work that you take for granted. Rather than question what's become gospel, they either scratch their heads and shrug and work on something else, or they develop convoluted hypotheses that allow the gospel to remain true. Those don't pan out either.
5. someone takes a step back, starts with the basics and looks at the discipline holistically, actually re-examines old stuff, and discovers what was wrong with the intuitive argument in step 1. Suddenly things start making perfect sense.
There is a surprising lack of people who can synthesize knowledge like that, relative to how many people are getting degrees in various fields. If I were going to become the expert on something, I would pick one of those weird things that don't make sense and learn that discipline from the ground-up with that weird thing in the back of my mind.
posted by Nattie at 6:57 PM on April 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
What has happened is that early on someone said some things in a paper on the field that seemed intuitively right, but only told part of the story. Since that time people have been retelling this to one another and never looking at first principals. At some point I was looking at someone's data, noticed something anomalous, decided that I really had no good intuitive understanding of how worked and that I needed to fix that.
I was going to suggest looking for things along those lines; lots of amazing things I've been reading about lately have arisen because the following has happened:
1. decades ago, someone argued something that seemed intuitive
2. it got repeated over and over until everyone took it for granted that it was true, even if it was controversial or disputed at the time
3. as more and more research is done in a discipline, people spend more time learning about tiny, specialized pieces of the whole and loose sight of the basics and how those pieces ought to be connected
4. scattered problems arise in the discipline that don't make sense. No one seems to be figuring those things out because not that many people actually understand the big picture, and of those a ton still don't realize how weak the evidence actually is for a lot of things that have become gospel; when you're struggling to keep up with the latest research, you're not inclined to go back and check decades old work that you take for granted. Rather than question what's become gospel, they either scratch their heads and shrug and work on something else, or they develop convoluted hypotheses that allow the gospel to remain true. Those don't pan out either.
5. someone takes a step back, starts with the basics and looks at the discipline holistically, actually re-examines old stuff, and discovers what was wrong with the intuitive argument in step 1. Suddenly things start making perfect sense.
There is a surprising lack of people who can synthesize knowledge like that, relative to how many people are getting degrees in various fields. If I were going to become the expert on something, I would pick one of those weird things that don't make sense and learn that discipline from the ground-up with that weird thing in the back of my mind.
posted by Nattie at 6:57 PM on April 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Weirdly, I sort of did that.
For 18 months I was employed to do some research in an area which wasn't something I'd previously known anything about. As it happened, I was pretty much the only person (in this bit of the world anyway, but it's mostly only an issue which is relevant here) who had done research in that field (I still am, more or less).
A little over a year ago something happened that thrust my issue of expertise very much into the public spotlight. For a few days, everyone wanted my opinion. I did interviews on multiple national TV channels (and turned down some of the more tabloid TV that I don't personally like), and according to Google News, was quoted in news articles all over the world (including a bunch of non-English media). I did something like 30 interviews in three days.
Then the issue mostly passed and I've faded back into happy obscurity.
There were a few of things which made this possible:
Firstly, I already had a PhD in the broad discipline (not the exact subject, however), which meant I was able to be employed to research this topic. Yes, I only worked on it for 18 months, but I already had knowledge to build on.
Second, I was pretty much the only person around doing work on this topic.
Third, I've published in the field in such a way that I'm easy to find through a Google search on the topic (that is, reports that had my name on them that were published as online reports, rather than hidden in the subscription-only scientific literature). Journalists are lazy (they would say they were busy), and the person who is the first hit on Google for the topic in question is going to be the first one called.
Fourth, I work in a position where I'm allowed to make public comment. Many other people who work in areas related to this issue work for the government, and aren't allowed to make statements about what they know (mostly lest it be interpreted as a government policy position).
I'm not actually even working in that field any more, and occasionally I get called to make comments when it surfaces again. Personally, I don't really like doing media, so I'm more than happy to leave that to someone else. It is nice to continue to be invited to speak at academic conferences on the topic, however, so I need to keep my knowledge up to date.
FWIW, I'm 35, so yes, it's entirely possible to do it. I did my PhD pretty slowly, but all of this happened within a year or two of me finishing it, so I don't see 10 years as an unreasonable timeline. But I'm not sure why you'd set out with the intention of doing it. I imagine most people who end up the go-to experts on a topic end up like that by accident (as I did, really).
posted by damonism at 8:22 PM on April 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
For 18 months I was employed to do some research in an area which wasn't something I'd previously known anything about. As it happened, I was pretty much the only person (in this bit of the world anyway, but it's mostly only an issue which is relevant here) who had done research in that field (I still am, more or less).
A little over a year ago something happened that thrust my issue of expertise very much into the public spotlight. For a few days, everyone wanted my opinion. I did interviews on multiple national TV channels (and turned down some of the more tabloid TV that I don't personally like), and according to Google News, was quoted in news articles all over the world (including a bunch of non-English media). I did something like 30 interviews in three days.
Then the issue mostly passed and I've faded back into happy obscurity.
There were a few of things which made this possible:
Firstly, I already had a PhD in the broad discipline (not the exact subject, however), which meant I was able to be employed to research this topic. Yes, I only worked on it for 18 months, but I already had knowledge to build on.
Second, I was pretty much the only person around doing work on this topic.
Third, I've published in the field in such a way that I'm easy to find through a Google search on the topic (that is, reports that had my name on them that were published as online reports, rather than hidden in the subscription-only scientific literature). Journalists are lazy (they would say they were busy), and the person who is the first hit on Google for the topic in question is going to be the first one called.
Fourth, I work in a position where I'm allowed to make public comment. Many other people who work in areas related to this issue work for the government, and aren't allowed to make statements about what they know (mostly lest it be interpreted as a government policy position).
I'm not actually even working in that field any more, and occasionally I get called to make comments when it surfaces again. Personally, I don't really like doing media, so I'm more than happy to leave that to someone else. It is nice to continue to be invited to speak at academic conferences on the topic, however, so I need to keep my knowledge up to date.
FWIW, I'm 35, so yes, it's entirely possible to do it. I did my PhD pretty slowly, but all of this happened within a year or two of me finishing it, so I don't see 10 years as an unreasonable timeline. But I'm not sure why you'd set out with the intention of doing it. I imagine most people who end up the go-to experts on a topic end up like that by accident (as I did, really).
posted by damonism at 8:22 PM on April 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yes. Get a PhD.
Problem is, most of the time no one will care about what you are now the world expert in. I envy the science students; if their research is on something interesting (like whales or dinosaurs or something) or they have some surprising findings, at least the science shows want to talk to them. But I've met the world expert on baptismal and marriage seasonality in England c1530-1700 -- but I haven't ever heard him on the radio explaining how people became less reluctant to marry during advent over the several generations after the Reformation. Nor have I ever heard the CBC call up that really cool guy at the Uof Lancaster to ask about reclamation of mosses by landlords in the 16th century as part of their right of approvement; I thought his paper was awesome, but it just didn't seem to make the 6 o'clock news.
posted by jb at 11:58 PM on April 13, 2010
Problem is, most of the time no one will care about what you are now the world expert in. I envy the science students; if their research is on something interesting (like whales or dinosaurs or something) or they have some surprising findings, at least the science shows want to talk to them. But I've met the world expert on baptismal and marriage seasonality in England c1530-1700 -- but I haven't ever heard him on the radio explaining how people became less reluctant to marry during advent over the several generations after the Reformation. Nor have I ever heard the CBC call up that really cool guy at the Uof Lancaster to ask about reclamation of mosses by landlords in the 16th century as part of their right of approvement; I thought his paper was awesome, but it just didn't seem to make the 6 o'clock news.
posted by jb at 11:58 PM on April 13, 2010
Oh, and the other problem is that for the topics that the media ARE actually interested in, they are very bad at finding experts. They'll know one historian whose an expert on, say, 16th century religion and who is a pretty good talker, and then ask them to comment on 16th century demographics about which they might know as little as an undergrad who's taken one course in the topic. Which I suppose is better than military or security studies, where the media refuse to consult with any independent experts and prefer to just give the administration or politically motivated thinktank-types free reign on the public soap-boxes.
One usual exception to the former problem -- the calling of a famous "expert" well beyond their field of expertise while ignoring lesser known experts who are actually expert in the specific topic -- is the BBC radio show "In Our Time." I remember hearing one show about a topic about which I have a fairly good knowledge and thinking "They better have so-and-so on there or else they have a bad show..." and lo, they had him. They didn't have someone else I think they maybe should have, but he had moved on topic-wise.
The latter problem -- the lack of independent experts in security and military studies -- well, that is also the fault of those in the academy who have decided that studying war must be "evil" and therefore only those with guns should be allowed to do so. Because that always works out so well.
posted by jb at 12:09 AM on April 14, 2010
One usual exception to the former problem -- the calling of a famous "expert" well beyond their field of expertise while ignoring lesser known experts who are actually expert in the specific topic -- is the BBC radio show "In Our Time." I remember hearing one show about a topic about which I have a fairly good knowledge and thinking "They better have so-and-so on there or else they have a bad show..." and lo, they had him. They didn't have someone else I think they maybe should have, but he had moved on topic-wise.
The latter problem -- the lack of independent experts in security and military studies -- well, that is also the fault of those in the academy who have decided that studying war must be "evil" and therefore only those with guns should be allowed to do so. Because that always works out so well.
posted by jb at 12:09 AM on April 14, 2010
Walk out of the humanities ivory tower for a bit and you'll enter a different world.
I'm a neuroscientist. 4 years is doable, and I guess if you're going into industry, you could do it quicker. A three year PhD with a CV good enough to get a job doing science for it's own sake? I doubt it.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 1:06 AM on April 14, 2010
I'm a neuroscientist. 4 years is doable, and I guess if you're going into industry, you could do it quicker. A three year PhD with a CV good enough to get a job doing science for it's own sake? I doubt it.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 1:06 AM on April 14, 2010
Most PhDs in Australia, across all disciplines, take longer than the notional three years, but it's not unrealistic to set that as your goal, many do get done in this time. I believe that scholarship finding runs out after 3.5 years.
posted by wilful at 7:23 PM on April 14, 2010
posted by wilful at 7:23 PM on April 14, 2010
I believe that scholarship finding runs out after 3.5 years.
3.0, in my experience.
posted by pompomtom at 10:32 PM on April 14, 2010
3.0, in my experience.
posted by pompomtom at 10:32 PM on April 14, 2010
Ah, Australian Postgraduate Awards, rather than something some rich git may have donated some time (blessed be his name).
posted by wilful at 11:01 PM on April 14, 2010
posted by wilful at 11:01 PM on April 14, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 10:09 PM on April 11, 2010