I myself judge on “open communication”. Is the person willing, even eager, to answer questions about her domain of expertise as clearly as she is able?

I have in mind the example of two expert doctors I encountered: both were hard to understand, but one of them dismissed questions and the other handled them with respect, sometimes needing to research a response(!) but sometimes still failing to secure my comprehension. That is a world of difference: the second doctor was secure enough in her expertise to state when she was not sufficiently certain of the response and go back to her sources, to learn. Experts have humility with respect to their chosen domain.

You provide an example, I think, that shows the possibility that one could be an expert in an area where it might not matter. Thanks for that.

Car,
Certainly not. I chose communicate because it serves more than the verbal. If I’m playing tennis with someone who’s much better than me, I might consider them an expert just because of their command of the game – without there ever being a word exchanged. Yet I see them as an expert because of how they communicated it, through their play, on the court.

Does that help clarify how I see it?

However, I wouldn’t necessarily limit the ability to be entitled an ‘expert’ through just other people. If for example I consider myself a computer expert, I can reach this conclusion from 1 of 2 ways. Your way by demonstrating to others that I am more capable than they are, or I can have them demonstrate their abilities instead, and if they’re inferior to my own, then that would entitle me to wear the ‘expert’ tag.

However, as you pointed out, the title means nothing unless shown to others and have them agree. The point though is that what would justify you to wear it, rather than justify your skill level.

MDB,
Exactly. Having knowledge is one thing. But does that make you an expert? I’m saying that expert is decided by everyone other than the person with the ‘expertise.’ So that requires the ability to share what you know.

Ilia,
I’m not sure anyone is entitled to the title expert. Again, we can call ourselves anything, but that doesn’t mean others see us in the same light. And in business, it’s about what other people think.

Jamie,
True. When an expert witness testifies at a trial, who’s decided that they’re an expert? Isn’t that quite subjective.

CHESSNOID,
Sure, but they how would you know someone is an expert?

Funny, in my field (criminal trials, etc.) that pretty much defines expert…

I think yes it makes sense to say where if you cannot show that you are an expert, you cannot be considered an expert. I’m guessing when you’re referring to ‘communicating’ you are not limiting this to verbal, but every type of communication being verbal and physical and so forth. Which is reasonable, but the language used may be confused, such as I did.

That said, the point made seems to be clear, if you have a skill or knowledge which may entitle you to be referred to as an ‘expert’, then you must be able to demonstrate or display your ability otherwise the title of ‘expert’ cannot be used until justified through others.

No.

You make yourself an expert by acquiring skills and/or knowledge about a subject. But you won’t be recognized as an expert unless you convincingly communicate your expertise verbally or in writing OR be able to demonstrate your knowledge and skills in a satisfactory fashion to someone who is already considered an expert or at least knowledgeable on the subject matter. Which could lead to an interesting problem if the very first so-called expert was a fraud.

My original point in your previous article was around the ability to verbally communicate one’s expertise. Some people just aren’t able to do that. That doesn’t diminish their knowledge or skills, but it does make it harder to show what you know.

I feel, what’s the point of ‘being an expert’ if you can’t share your knowledge? Pointless, really.

Ilia,
Exactly. It is relative…it’s subjective. And, of course, we can call ourselves anything. But like beauty, isn’t expertise seen through the eye of the beholder?

1. A person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist.

2. The highest rating in rifle marksmanship, above that of marksman and sharpshooter.

3. Possessing special skill or knowledge; trained by practice.

So by definition, anyone can be an expert and more so if they simply have a great skill. As for the topic on hand of whether someone can not be considered an expert if they cannot communicate their expertise, well ask yourself this: Is a person who can drive very well not an expert? Is an expert rifleman not an expert?

The process of labeling someone an expert is relative, meaning it can be done at your discretion, just as much as it is left up to someone else’s. It’s really just as stated above where if you are better than the people around you, you’re an expert. However this doesn’t necessarily make you the best, there may very well be thousands other ‘experts’ such as yourself out there. So the definition of “Master” is a good application where you’ve still got a lot to learn, but already have a good foundation.

It’s safe to say if you have a skill that can be put in place better than others, you should can consider yourself an expert. However, depending on the field in which you classify yourself an expert in,
you can’t be considered an expert teacher, if you can’t teach. So essentially, depending on your field, if it requires you to communicate, if you cannot do so, you cannot be an expert.