Never an Expert

I am more satisfied with the thought of never being an expert than by the complacency that comes with claiming expertise.

ex·pert

/ˈekˌspərt/

noun

a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.

Oxford Dictionary

Becoming an expert in any given subject is generally a goal that practitioners within the associated field strive for.

Whether one describes an expert as ‘comprehensive’, ‘authoritative’, or even a ‘mastery’ of knowledge, I truly believe that all these definitions are incorrect.

One is not an expert because they have knowledge, they simply just have enough in the given subject to coherently portray their thoughts and findings — and in that sense, one could consider themselves an expert in the English language.

Here’s the caveat, every individual is constantly learning, evolving, and generating new perceptions based on every and any input they receive. Those that do not generate new perceptions, are stagnant, and I would barely consider an ‘expert’ to be someone who doesn’t evolve with their field.

“In retrospect I realize that in almost everything that we worked on together, we were both amateurs. In digital physics, neural networks, even parallel computing, we never really knew what we were doing. But the things that we studied were so new that no one else knew exactly what they were doing either. It was amateurs who made the progress.”

- Danny Hillis, reflecting on his work with Richard Feynman

I believe, with absolute certainty, that one will always remain an amateur.

To become an ‘expert’ is to relieve oneself of the pursuit of knowledge for pleasure and enjoyment. An amateur does not act out of financial gain, but out of knowledge — those are the individuals who progress their fields.
To be an amateur is to be a human: constantly evolving, learning, iterating, and generating unique perceptions and ideas from previous knowledge, and due to novel stimulus.

In such, claiming ‘expert’ is limiting, as it sets endpoints to one’s knowledge.

The closest comparison to be made to amateurism is psychologist Carol Dweck’s growth mindset—and outlook where intelligence and skill are elastic; endpoints are illusions. Those who believe they are ‘dialed’ stall, and those who keep tinkering continue climbing.

Deliberate practice demands operating just beyond current limits with immediate feedback—perpetual, purposeful struggle. Time alone will not make greatness; it’s time spent teetering at the unfamiliar border.

- anecdotal from K. Anders Ericsson

Feynman lived on that edge. He invented problems to learn the solutions — expert by reputation, amateur by habit, forever inventing problems merely to solve them.

So, that is where we leave. What’s one skill-rep today that will feel awkward, maybe even ego bruising? That rep—not the work you can already ace—creates tomorrow’s gains.

Proving competence is fleeting; pursuing curiosity is endless.