My step-dad, Gary, is a computer engineer who holds a Master’s Degree in computer science and has had a 40-year career in his field. According to Goldstein, he would be considered an expert because he devoted a significant amount of time learning, practicing, and applying gained knowledge to be exceptionally skilled and knowledgeable about his topic (2015). This definition suits Gary perfectly. On the other hand, I am not an expert in computers and consider myself a novice. A novice is someone who hasn’t had the extensive training that creates an expert. If you gave each of us the same problem to solve involving an issue with a computer, due to his expert status, Gary would not only produce the solution faster but with greater accuracy. Is Gary that much more intelligent than me? Is he just better at problem-solving? Cognitive psychologists have figured out what makes experts superior at solving problems than novices, and it doesn’t have anything to do with intelligence.

It’s not surprising that experts possess more knowledge about their subjects and that this knowledge allows them to use it to their advantage during problem-solving. When looking at a computer-related problem, Gary uses his previous experience and expertise to guide his decisions. As a novice, I have little experience and information, so I don’t see the problem the same way. Interestingly, studies have known that experts perform no better at problem-solving if the problem is related to their field but foreign to them. Chess masters who had stored information about game-related patterns were lost when they were randomized, and their performance was no better than the novices (Goldstein, 2015). If the expert can reference specific information that can inform how they solve a problem, they are superior. What other advantages would Gary have?

Psychologists have found that experts rely on previous knowledge and experience and organize that knowledge differently (Goldstein, 2015). It turns out that experts like Gary use their in-depth knowledge of their subject to go beyond the surface features of a problem and explore the underlying principles. Where I would look at the basic parts of a computer and attempt to solve the problem from the outside, Gary would look at the integral structure and what might be going on inside the structure.

Another way that experts excel at problem-solving is time spent analyzing the problem. Gary would take more time to understand the problem and all that it entails, while I would jump right into solving it. Novices don’t have the experience and information needed to understand the problem entirely. The slower, more in-depth analysis of the problem leads to more accurate results than the faster novice’s solution. From experience, I can say this is correct because I have observed Gary solving problems compared to myself, and he is always slow, analytical, methodical, and accurate.

We’ve learned that experts are great at solving problems related to their field of expertise because they possess the well-organized knowledge and experience needed to be successful and accurate. They are methodical and move at a slower, more in-depth pace. However, these advantages only extend to the field of the expert’s training. Psychologists have found that the benefit is reduced to nothing outside of the area where the expert is the authority (Goldstein, 2015). The answer is neither as we circle back to Gary being more intelligent or a better problem solver. Outside of the expert’s field, the novice and the expert seems to be on level ground, demonstrating that knowledge is power.

Works Cited

Goldstein, E. B. (2015). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research and Everyday Experience. Cengage Learning.