I think we are talking past each other. By "mental space" I'm talking about storage; you seem to be talking about processing. Yes, the expert can process faster, more efficiently. But that is because more mental space has been dedicated to storing specific patterns and their combinations, and more time has been spent studying and integrating examples. The expert chess player certainly pays less attention to the pieces - but that is because she has developed a larger amount of brain area for chess, and has more processing architecture available for it. So she can process the board much faster. The novice does not yet have this architecture in place, and so the board's configuration is mostly a new experience, rather than a combination of patterns he has largely seen before.
I do agree that the brain is not like a hard drive, so my analogy about storage is only weakly connected to the idea of a hard drive. And I agree about the dynamic structure emerging over time, as more examples and patterns are integrated, for more efficient processing. I'm simply saying that this specialization requires a larger chunk of dedicated brain-area than what the non-expert has available for a particular domain. It is because the expert has this architecture in place that he/she can do more, faster, with a new (related) example. BTW - I wouldn't say the expert cannot explain why he has reached a certain conclusion. Largely speaking, she can. A blind person can tell you exactly what all the little raised dots and patterns mean. I just mean that, as expertise is built up, this process of articulation becomes unnecessary. And probably, in more complex domains, *some *subtle patterns are probably integrated into the architecture without awareness of them. In these cases, it *would *be more difficult and more complex to articulate what has led to the conclusion. However, the broad strokes of analysis are almost certainly readily available. Cheers, -Ted On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:51 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <e...@psu.edu> wrote: > Again, I suggest the evidence is exactly the opposite! > > You assert that the art expert needs lots of mental space to fill with his > "experiences" of past real and fake statues. I suggest that he needs less > and less mental space the more expert he gets (and that this is typically > what we mean by "expertise"). He specifically pays attention to less factors > in making his "intuitive" judgments, because he only paying attention to the > factors that will give him an answer, rather than all the distracting > non-insightful factors he paid attention to when new at his job. This > suggests he could have been taught to tell reals from fakes without every > knowing what he was looking at, and even without the trainer knowing what he > was looking at. (Studies show, for example, that novice chess players pay > the most attention to the pieces, while expert chess players pay the most > attention to a specific class of empty spaces. I've seen advise in chess > books that might lead you to this state, but never one that gave explicit > instruction to do so.) It is not amazing that such abilities are > unarticulated, we should expect them to be. Being able to do something AND > articulate what you are doing is more complex, not more basic, than being > able to do something without being able to explain it. > > Having a brain that only pays attention to the important things should > require less "space", but more "specialization" than having a brain that > pays attention to everything. Your brain is NOT like a harddrive on which > anything can be written. Your brain is more like a custom made processor, > that dynamically adapts its structure, and likes to minimize power usage. > > To connect this with the other thread, and Rich's eloquent statement, the > transcendent person is LESS complicated than the average person. They have > let go of unnecessary complications. When you "accept everyone" and "let > them all the way in" you are actually doing LESS than an average person, who > judges and discriminates each person, and must regulate exactly how much to > let each one in. > > Though the process of development in each of these cases may be complex, > the result is surely more elegant and simple than the starting point. > > Eric > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 02:58 AM, *Ted Carmichael <teds...@gmail.com>* wrote: > > Well ... by "built up" I mean the collecting of examples. Yes, each > example is part novel and part pattern. So I do get what you are saying, in > regards to how these specific examples allow a sort of mental pruning, down > to the essential aspects. > > In Blink, Gladwell uses the example of an art expert who is able to see - > immediately - that a particular statue is fake. The expert's judgement is > immediate, without even articulating - at first - exactly *why *he knows > it is fake. But he has crafted this expertise over time, with thoughtful > and particular study of many, many examples of real and fake statues. > > What's wonderful about this is that many of the rules *remain *unarticulated. > The brain somehow manages to piece together many of these patterns - these > 'essential' aspects - unconsciously. But it still requires intense study, > and foreknowledge of what is real and what is fake. By giving years of > study to these particular examples, the art expert is allocating more of his > brain to record all the patterns he needs. > > This is very similar to how, for example, a blind person has more expert > hearing or touch. It's not that your ears are magically better because you > are blind, or your fingers more sensitive to touch for reading braille. The > blind simply devote more time and study to interpreting these particular > patterns of touch and sound ... more brain area for processing a greater > number of patterns in this realm than a sighted person would use. > > Then eventually, a blind person can read while hardly aware of the > individual dots felt by his fingers. > > Perhaps it would be better to say these skills are "developed" rather than > "built up." But they do, I believe, require a larger chunk of mental space, > to accommodate the larger number of specific patterns that are remembered in > the domain of expertise. > > For myself, I can assure you the amount of space in my brain dedicated to > statues is much smaller. It's pretty much restricted to "Yes, that's a > statue." > > -Ted > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:47 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES > <e...@psu.edu<#12baacb28ea09d3c_> > > wrote: > >> It's strange that when Gladwell says this stuff, it sounds attractive, but >> when a behaviorist says the same thing people think it sounds crazy: >> >> "Intelligent" behavior is not caused by "thinking", but rather it is >> simply attunement of the body to the correct environmental variables. There >> is nothing "built up" about it, quite the opposite, it is pared down and >> simplified. It is "selective attention", in terms purely of one's behavior >> being dependent upon only the essential aspects of what is going on around >> you. This shouldn't lead us to think the mind even more wonderful, but >> rather to question the usefulness of mind-talk and mind-focused-learning in >> the first place. >> >> Sigh, >> >> Eric >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 06:50 PM, *Ted Carmichael >> <teds...@gmail.com<#12baacb28ea09d3c_> >> >* wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Merle Lefkoff >> <me...@arspublica.org<#12baacb28ea09d3c_12ba86c08669b3f2_> >> > wrote: >> >>> Merle Lefkoff wrote: >>> >>> [snip] Even so-called "experts" are hard-wired for "loss aversion". They >>> are likely to form their predictions based on how recently they predicted >>> wrongly and NOT on the statistics they've studied. >> >> >> Well, the point in Gladwell's book was that a LOT of learning and >> experience is built up, so that predictions or assessments, etc., become >> immediate, knee-jerk reactions. The processes that inform such decisions >> occur below the level of consciousness, but nevertheless require years of >> study. >> >> So it's not just statistics that are studied, but rather thousands and >> thousands of instances of learning that are remembered, and thus aggregated >> below conscious awareness. Even though the process of training one's brain >> for many different examples requires conscious thought and reflection, the >> end result becomes a reflexive action. >> >> -Ted >> >> > > > -- > Ted Carmichael, Ph.D. > Complex Systems Institute > Department of Software and Information Systems > College of Computing and Informatics > 310-A Woodward Hall > UNC Charlotte > Charlotte, NC 28223 > teds...@gmail.com <#12baacb28ea09d3c_> > tdcar...@uncc.edu <#12baacb28ea09d3c_> > Phone: 704-492-4902 > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > Eric Charles > > Professional Student and > Assistant Professor of Psychology > Penn State University > Altoona, PA 16601 > > > -- Ted Carmichael, Ph.D. Complex Systems Institute Department of Software and Information Systems College of Computing and Informatics 310-A Woodward Hall UNC Charlotte Charlotte, NC 28223 teds...@gmail.com tdcar...@uncc.edu Phone: 704-492-4902
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
