What Do Novice Depend on for Choice of Expertise?

丛杭青

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-8934.2004.05.020

2004-01-01

Abstract:In scientific practice and living world, facing two experts who give inconsistent or contradictive expertise concerning the same problem, whether layman or novice can justifiedly believe/accept not one expertise but another expertise, and how?

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

On Suggestion of Expert in Justice

LI WEI

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-472x.2008.02.026

2008-01-01

Journal of Xidian University

Abstract:The administration of justice is not a course in which the legal norm is applied logically,but one including numerous delicate and complicated judgements,which becomes more obvious in hard case. Judges meet with the questions of making no adequate defense sometimes. In order to judge a case and solve the dispute effectively and fairly,judges have to resort to some other legal knowledge,among which is the suggestion from the expert.
The Difference Between Differences: How Expertise Affects Diagnosticity of Attribute Alignability

Myungwoo Nam,Jing Wang,Angela Y. Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/664987

IF: 8.612

2012-01-01

Journal of Consumer Research

Abstract:Whereas past research showed that people rely more on alignable than nonalignable differences when evaluating alternative products, the current article shows that consumer expertise moderates this effect and that novices' reliance on alignable attributes can be attenuated when they are motivated or are provided with category knowledge. The authors conducted four experiments to test their hypotheses. Participants considered nonalignable (vs. alignable) attributes to be more differentiating between two competing brands, especially among experts (study 1). In addition, compared to novices, experts more actively sought out nonalignable attributes (study 2) and relied more on nonalignable than alignable attributes when making brand choice decisions (studies 3 and 4). Consistent with the hypothesis that experts' processing of nonalignable attributes is driven by their deeper motivation and knowledge, enhancing motivation (study 3) and the knowledge base (study 4) among novices led to their increased use of a nonalignable attribute as the basis of judgment.
Can Novices Trust Themselves to Choose Trustworthy Experts? Reasons for (Reserved) Optimism

Johnny Brennan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2019.1703056

IF: 1.625

2020-01-13

Social Epistemology

Abstract:Novices face a problem when it comes to forming true beliefs about controversial issues that they cannot assess themselves: Who are the trustworthy experts? Elizabeth Anderson offers a set of criteria intended to allow novices to form reliable assessments of expert trustworthiness. All they need to assess experts is a high-school education and access to the internet. In this paper, I argue that novices face a much harder time using her criteria effectively than we would expect or hope. This problem is amplified when novices hold the wrong opinions. Such novices need her criteria the most and are the least likely to use them correctly. Such novices lack knowledge necessary for using the criteria accurately, and are likely to resist correction of their wrong opinions due to cognitive biases. After providing reasons to be skeptical of the effectiveness of her criteria, I propose some supplemental criteria to increase their effectiveness: metacognitive reliability conditions aimed at getting novices to assess themselves in the way that they assess experts. Although these additional criteria show promise, we should be reserved in our optimism.

history & philosophy of science,social sciences, interdisciplinary
Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction.

R. Nisbett,K. Peng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741

Abstract:Chinese ways of dealing with seeming contradictions result in a dialectical or compromise approach—retaining basic elements of opposing perspectives by seeking a "middle way." On the other hand, European-American ways, deriving from a lay version of Aristotelian logic, result in a differentiation model that polarizes contradictory perspectives in an effort to determine which fact or position is correct. Five empirical studies showed that dialectical thinking is a form of folk wisdom in Chinese culture: Chinese participants preferred dialectical proverbs containing seeming contradictions more than did American participants. Chinese participants also preferred dialectical resolutions to social conflicts and preferred dialectical arguments over classical Western logical arguments. Furthermore, when 2 apparently contradictory propositions were presented, American participants polarized their views, and Chinese participants were moderately accepting of both propositions. Origins of these cultural differences and their implications for human reasoning in general are discussed.

Sociology,Linguistics,Philosophy
Riskier for Me or for Others? the Role of Domain and Probability in Self-Other Differences, in Risky Decision-Making

Qingzhou Sun,Tao Jiang,Jing Zhang,Qingyuan Wu,Lei Zhao,Fengpei Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2019.1664388

2019-01-01

The Journal of General Psychology

Abstract:In social and economic interactions, people often decide differently for others, as against for themselves, under situations involving risks. This sometimes leads to conflicts or contradictions. Although previous studies have explored such contradictions, the findings have been inconsistent. To reconcile these inconsistencies, this paper investigates the role played by the different domains and probabilities in the self-other differences under risk. Two groups of participants completed a gambling task combining different domains (gain vs. loss) and probabilities (small vs. large). One group made decisions for others and the other group made decisions for themselves. The results revealed a four pattern of discrepancy: the ones who made decisions for others were less risk-seeking than those who made decisions for themselves over the small probability gains. This was reversed over the large probability gains. Conversely, the participants who made decisions for others were more risk-seeking than those who made decisions for themselves over the small probability losses. The results were reversed over the large probability losses. These results reconcile the contradictory findings of the previous studies and suggest the significant role played by contextual factors in such discrepancies.
The Effects of Age and Expertise on Product Evaluations: Does the Type of Information Matter?

Jing Wang,Catherine A. Cole

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2224

IF: 5.4

2015-01-01

Management Science

Abstract:To better understand two large consumer segments, the boomers and the echo-boomers, we examine whether and why experts and novices from these two segments rely on attribute versus benefit information in product evaluations. In four studies, we show that expertise affects younger consumers, such that younger novices evaluate products more favorably when the descriptions feature benefit information, whereas younger experts evaluate products more favorably when the descriptions feature attribute information. However, both older novices and experts evaluate products described with benefit information more favorably than those described with attribute information. We further show that differences in the perceived diagnosticity of different types of information mediate the effects of expertise and age on product evaluations. We theorize that age differences in perceived diagnosticity occur because older and younger consumers spontaneously construe information in different ways. Therefore, age differences in the effect of expertise on evaluations should disappear when construal levels are controlled. Consistent with our hypotheses, we demonstrate that when primed to construe information at concrete levels, older consumers behave just like younger consumers—older experts formed more favorable evaluations toward products described with attribute information, but older novices formed more favorable evaluations toward products described with benefit information. When younger consumers are primed to construe information at abstract levels, they prefer products described with benefit information regardless of expertise, just like older consumers. We discuss the implications of our results for both researchers and practitioners. This paper was accepted by Pradeep Chintagunta, marketing.
Hey, What is Your Choice? Uncertainty and Inconsistency Enhance Subjective Anticipation of Upcoming Information in a Social Context

Lei Wang,Haoye Sun,Lu Li,Liang Meng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5336-x

2018-01-01

Experimental Brain Research

Abstract:This research examined whether uncertainty would modulate subjective anticipation during social interactions as it does in the non-social context, and further explored how response consistency between participants would influence one's anticipation. We set up an encyclopedic knowledge quiz involving two anonymous same-sex players and manipulated the difficulty of proposed questions (high-uncertainty accompanies highly difficult questions). An enlarged stimulus-preceding negativity was observed when participants were anticipating the presentation of their counterparts' responses to high-uncertainty questions (versus low-uncertainty ones), as well as when they were anticipating the display of correct answers to high-uncertainty questions after they found out that responses given by their partners were inconsistent (versus consistent) with their own. In addition, inconsistent responses gave rise to a more salient difference wave reward positivity and a more positive P300 during the feedback stage. Taken together, these results suggested that both uncertainty and inconsistency would enhance subjective anticipation of upcoming information during social interactions, and that inconsistency would strengthen one's concern and attention over outcomes.
How to understand the identity dilemma of science advisers?

YIN Xue-hui,LI Zheng-feng

2012-01-01

Abstract:With the continuous social progress by knowledge drive contemporary public policy making need more support from scientific and technical expertise.Implications of Scientific discovery and technological development for policy have become a unique problem domain,scientific adviser also has become an influential role in today's policy-making process.With breakdown of knowledge certainty and scientific objectivity,the roles of expertise and advisers in decision-making has been questioned and challenged.This paper argues that,fact judgment and value judgment is both in decision-making situation,the truth of scientific advice and value in political decision constitute a dilemma of science advisers.Based on such viewpoint,we will analyze the reason for this dilemma appear to,explore the role connotation of science advisers,and try to re-understanding on limitation and unique role of specialized knowledge and scientists in decision-making.
Metaknowledge of Experts Versus Nonexperts: Do Experts Know Better What They Do and Do Not Know?

Yuyan Han,David Dunning

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2375

2024-03-17

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Abstract:ABSTRACT Experts are usually valued for their knowledge. However, do they possess metaknowledge, that is, knowing how much they know as well as the limits of that knowledge? The current research examined expert metaknowledge by comparing experts' and nonexperts' confidence when they made correct versus incorrect choices as well as the difference in‐between (e.g., Murphy's Resolution and Yate's Separation). Across three fields of expertise (climate science, psychological statistics, and investment), we found that experts tended to display better metaknowledge than nonexperts but still showed systematic and important imperfections. They were less overconfident than nonexperts in general and expressed more confidence in their correct answers. However, they tend to exhibit low Murphy's Resolution similar to nonexperts and gave endorsed wrong answers with equal to higher confidence than did their nonexpert peers. Thus, it appears that expertise is associated with knowing with more certainty what one knows but conceals awareness of what one does not know.

psychology, applied
Becoming an Expert Teacher——Sternberg on the Fundamental Features of Expert Teachers

Sheng Qunli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0008.2010.06.005

2010-01-01

Abstract:By creating a batch of expert teachers, instructional design can help average teachers have expectation even achieve their dreams of the work which only those geniuses are able to take. However, expert teachers are not born with talent or super-intelligence,so they need to know the factors that influence teaching performance and improve their ability by consistent practice. The fundamental features of expert teachers are having expert knowledge, working efficiently, and having creative insights. After understanding these features, everyone can succeed to be an expert teacher, and own their different successful approaches by taking advantages of strengths and compensating for weaknesses.
Expert Testimony System in Britain & America and Establishment of Expert Testimony System in China

涂书田,程春华

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-0448.2002.03.013

2002-01-01

Abstract:Expert testimony system is a widely used testimony form of the result of modern science and technology development.In Britain and America,the practice that they view experts as special witnesses is new to us.Expert witnesses offer testimony to the court by various forms,including experts' report,suggestions,etc.,focusing on the justice and independence and making investigation through cross-examination.In China,we only accept the experts' report.It can neither be scientific nor meet the reality.Based on the practice in Britain and America,we must perfect our expert testimony system with experts' conclusion as the main testimony and their suggestions as a complementary.
Relativists at 30,000 Feet——On the Compatibility Between Relativism and the Validity of Science

刘鹏

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-7062.2010.05.010

2010-01-01

Abstract:How to ensure the coexistence of relativism and validity of science is what puzzles all relativists.Epistemological relativism's ( such as Social Constructivism) standpoint that science is socially constructed inevitably leads to a contradiction between relativism and validity of science which has far from been resolved in a debate between Richard Dawkins as scientist and David Bloor as sociologist.What is necessary for solving this problem is: to substitute(1) social constructivism with practical constructivism; ( 2) epistemological relativism with ontological relativism; and(3) ontologized science with the science as an epistemological concept.
What Constitutes Effective Mathematics Instruction: A Comparison of Chinese Expert and Novice Teachers’ Views

Rongjin Huang,Yeping Li,Xiaoya He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2010.524965

2010-11-30

Abstract:In this study, we examined the views of 10 experts and 10 novices on effective mathematics instruction in China. We found that all the participants valued students’ mastering of mathematical knowledge and skills and their development in mathematical thinking methods and abilities. Compared with novice teachers, expert teachers emphasized the development of students’ mathematical thinking and higher order thinking abilities and properly dealing with important and difficult content points. In contrast, novice teachers were particularly concerned about the effectiveness of teachers’ guidance.
Public Attitudes Towards Experts in China

Li Shao,Meng U. Leong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2022.2123699

2022-01-01

Journal of Asian Public Policy

Abstract:Previous studies in China's policy process have paid limited attention to public perceptions of experts. Through an original survey, we explore public attitudes on expertise, i.e., the merits of expert opinion and expert autonomy. We find that professional experience is the most important criterion on which respondents evaluate experts. The higher a respondent's political trust is, the more likely he or she is to recognize the benefits that experts may offer. We also find an underlying populist tendency towards the role of experts in policy making, respondents in general agree that the will of the people should be prioritized over expert opinion.
The Contradictions and Predicament in the Field Study of Anthropology

刘海涛

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-6959.2008.04.005

2008-01-01

Abstract:The relationship between an investigator and an object in the field study of Anthropology is a difficult problem which we should face.The contradictions and predicament in the field study of Anthropology are the embodiment of this difficult problem.It is those contradictions and predicament that push the progression and development of the field study of Anthropology.
Preferences for advisor agreement and accuracy

Matt Jaquiery,Nick Yeung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311211

IF: 3.7

2024-09-28

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Previous research has shown that people are more influenced by advisors who are objectively more accurate, but also by advisors who tend to agree with their own initial opinions. The present experiments extend these ideas to consider people's choices of who they receive advice from—the process of source selection. Across a series of nine experiments, participants were first exposed to advisors who differed in objective accuracy, the likelihood of agreeing with the participants' judgments, or both, and then were given choice over who would advise them across a series of decisions. Participants saw these advisors in the context of perceptual decision and general knowledge tasks, sometimes with feedback provided and sometimes without. We found evidence that people can discern accurate from inaccurate advice even in the absence of feedback, but that without feedback they are biased to select advisors who tend to agree with them. When choosing between advisors who are accurate vs. likely to agree with them, participants overwhelmingly choose accurate advisors when feedback is available, but show wide individual differences in preference when feedback is absent. These findings extend previous studies of advice influence to characterise patterns of advisor choice, with implications for how people select information sources and learn accordingly.

multidisciplinary sciences
Defining Expertise: Applications to Treatment Effect Estimation

Alihan Hüyük,Qiyao Wei,Alicia Curth,Mihaela van der Schaar

2024-03-02

Abstract:Decision-makers are often experts of their domain and take actions based on their domain knowledge. Doctors, for instance, may prescribe treatments by predicting the likely outcome of each available treatment. Actions of an expert thus naturally encode part of their domain knowledge, and can help make inferences within the same domain: Knowing doctors try to prescribe the best treatment for their patients, we can tell treatments prescribed more frequently are likely to be more effective. Yet in machine learning, the fact that most decision-makers are experts is often overlooked, and "expertise" is seldom leveraged as an inductive bias. This is especially true for the literature on treatment effect estimation, where often the only assumption made about actions is that of overlap. In this paper, we argue that expertise - particularly the type of expertise the decision-makers of a domain are likely to have - can be informative in designing and selecting methods for treatment effect estimation. We formally define two types of expertise, predictive and prognostic, and demonstrate empirically that: (i) the prominent type of expertise in a domain significantly influences the performance of different methods in treatment effect estimation, and (ii) it is possible to predict the type of expertise present in a dataset, which can provide a quantitative basis for model selection.

Machine Learning,Artificial Intelligence,Methodology
Studies of Experimental Reproducibility——The Comparison between the New Experimentalism and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge

Hua-qing HE,Tong WU

2008-01-01

Abstract:The traditional view of science believes experimental reproducibility is self-evident and indispensable, and the principle of repeatability is the essential criterion of scientific facts and the cornerstone of scientific certainty, universality. SSK and the new experimentalism all point the defects of traditional view concerning this question through an in-depth analysis of this principle. However, since the differences of primary focus, researching approach and epistemology, there are some discrepancies of thoughts and conclusions between SSK and the new experimentalism. This article mainly discusses and compares the relevant researches of experimental reproducibility between SSK and the new experimentalism, and finally put forward some attitudes about how to treat the experimental reproducibility.
What Makes An Expert? Reviewing How ML Researchers Define "Expert"

Mark Díaz,Angela DR Smith

2024-11-01

Abstract:Human experts are often engaged in the development of machine learning systems to collect and validate data, consult on algorithm development, and evaluate system performance. At the same time, who counts as an 'expert' and what constitutes 'expertise' is not always explicitly defined. In this work, we review 112 academic publications that explicitly reference 'expert' and 'expertise' and that describe the development of machine learning (ML) systems to survey how expertise is characterized and the role experts play. We find that expertise is often undefined and forms of knowledge outside of formal education and professional certification are rarely sought, which has implications for the kinds of knowledge that are recognized and legitimized in ML development. Moreover, we find that expert knowledge tends to be utilized in ways focused on mining textbook knowledge, such as through data annotation. We discuss the ways experts are engaged in ML development in relation to deskilling, the social construction of expertise, and implications for responsible AI development. We point to a need for reflection and specificity in justifications of domain expert engagement, both as a matter of documentation and reproducibility, as well as a matter of broadening the range of recognized expertise.

Machine Learning,Computers and Society
Debate Helps Supervise Unreliable Experts

Julian Michael,Salsabila Mahdi,David Rein,Jackson Petty,Julien Dirani,Vishakh Padmakumar,Samuel R. Bowman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.08702

2023-11-15

Abstract:As AI systems are used to answer more difficult questions and potentially help create new knowledge, judging the truthfulness of their outputs becomes more difficult and more important. How can we supervise unreliable experts, which have access to the truth but may not accurately report it, to give answers that are systematically true and don't just superficially seem true, when the supervisor can't tell the difference between the two on their own? In this work, we show that debate between two unreliable experts can help a non-expert judge more reliably identify the truth. We collect a dataset of human-written debates on hard reading comprehension questions where the judge has not read the source passage, only ever seeing expert arguments and short quotes selectively revealed by 'expert' debaters who have access to the passage. In our debates, one expert argues for the correct answer, and the other for an incorrect answer. Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct half of the time, we find that debate performs significantly better, with 84% judge accuracy compared to consultancy's 74%. Debates are also more efficient, being 68% of the length of consultancies. By comparing human to AI debaters, we find evidence that with more skilled (in this case, human) debaters, the performance of debate goes up but the performance of consultancy goes down. Our error analysis also supports this trend, with 46% of errors in human debate attributable to mistakes by the honest debater (which should go away with increased skill); whereas 52% of errors in human consultancy are due to debaters obfuscating the relevant evidence from the judge (which should become worse with increased skill). Overall, these results show that debate is a promising approach for supervising increasingly capable but potentially unreliable AI systems.

Artificial Intelligence,Computation and Language

What Do Novice Depend on for Choice of Expertise?

On Suggestion of Expert in Justice

The Difference Between Differences: How Expertise Affects Diagnosticity of Attribute Alignability

Can Novices Trust Themselves to Choose Trustworthy Experts? Reasons for (Reserved) Optimism

Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction.

Riskier for Me or for Others? the Role of Domain and Probability in Self-Other Differences, in Risky Decision-Making

The Effects of Age and Expertise on Product Evaluations: Does the Type of Information Matter?

Hey, What is Your Choice? Uncertainty and Inconsistency Enhance Subjective Anticipation of Upcoming Information in a Social Context

How to understand the identity dilemma of science advisers?

Metaknowledge of Experts Versus Nonexperts: Do Experts Know Better What They Do and Do Not Know?

Becoming an Expert Teacher——Sternberg on the Fundamental Features of Expert Teachers

Expert Testimony System in Britain & America and Establishment of Expert Testimony System in China

Relativists at 30,000 Feet——On the Compatibility Between Relativism and the Validity of Science

What Constitutes Effective Mathematics Instruction: A Comparison of Chinese Expert and Novice Teachers’ Views

Public Attitudes Towards Experts in China

The Contradictions and Predicament in the Field Study of Anthropology

Preferences for advisor agreement and accuracy

Defining Expertise: Applications to Treatment Effect Estimation

Studies of Experimental Reproducibility——The Comparison between the New Experimentalism and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge

What Makes An Expert? Reviewing How ML Researchers Define "Expert"

Debate Helps Supervise Unreliable Experts