Would you use an 'expert' if they knew only a little more than you?

There are experts offering services in pretty much all areas of our lives and as non-experts we use them to achieve goals in particular areas of focus. There are experts in accounting, recruitment, investment, tax, personal development, relationships, law, health...the list goes on and on. Now the basis for being an expert is generally two things, either one or both; accumulation of knowledge based on study and application of skill due to experience.

Now you would expect an 'expert' to be much better and a whole lot more knowledgeable then you are in a particular area before agreeing to utilize their services. Why? Because they cost a lot and you need a quality result - otherwise why use them in the first place. However what I have determined recently however is that many people claiming to be 'experts' in particular fields have little expert knowledge and two cannot provide you with a result that you would expect. What they are good at is convincing you of their quality and that you are getting value for money. The problem is it is difficult to validate a result or outcome from their services unless compared against something else - and many of us do not have that luxury.

I see it as 90% self-marketing and 10% of actual useful knowledge transfer. Experts have recently appeared in investment, coaching, personal branding, personal development, career management and personal training to name a few....where society as a whole are not quite aware as to what constitutes a valid qualification. Would you believe there are many investment advisers who only sell and advise on the 10% of potential investment strategies that they know or life coaches who cannot manage their own lives and have absolutely no formal training in psychology or coaching techniques. What about a personal trainer with no formal knowledge of nutrition or physiology? What benefit would you receive from someone who 'tells you what they think' rather than 'what is proven'? I know people out in the market consulting on personal branding - inherently not a new term but the growing individualism of the economy has brought it to our attention. Some of the advice is practical, extremely worthwhile but mostly commonsense - it is not proven to produce a predefined result and there is no established framework to produce a 'particularly perceived' personal brand image. Further there is no formal knowledge required or certification - so how can you validate the result? The answer is you cannot. Perception and effective marketing is a huge part of being an expert in many new fields where you simply have to convince people how good you actually are.

I do digress and in no way mean to slight any of the many experts in the above industries as I am friends with many, respect for many more and am involved myself. What I do want to focus on is the fact that so-called experts perhaps know only a little if nothing more than the rest of us. It might mean reading a book or magazine article to know someone more than the person next to you. If you want to manage your career for example get want some advice and direction go to someone with recognized knowledge and experience - and ask for evidence of this. But also research what qualifications and experience this person has. The internet has laid rise to a huge number of 'self proclaimed' experts and in our quest for success and wealth, we're tending to grab at anything and dilute the 'expert' brand. This may indirectly lead to the death of education as who needs formal qualifications if your word is accepted by the rest of society? It may also lead to a society that does not develop as quickly or in the direction that is best.

What does 'being an expert' truly mean?

We have all heard the term 'expert' mentioned countless times whether being applied to investing, health, fitness, relationship, politics, career etc. These 'experts' are seen to be the best of the best in their particular field and are turned to provide the best or most appropriate answers or solutions to any related matters. They are also paid the most to provide their time and knowledge.

But what does being an 'expert' truly mean?

Does it mean the most education or the one who knows the most, the one who can best apply their knowledge to real life situations, the one with the best results? Or does it simply mean the one who has convinced the most people that they are indeed an expert?

There are a lot of people who claim to be experts in their field who indeed have not proven that they indeed even an good at that they do. Most television experts are not experts but they have created a brand that makes them appear to be an expert to the public. This leads to TV ratings and thus their brand is sustained. Many financial and investment experts are not personally successful but through clever marketing appeal to the public's perception of what an expert is and thus become experts. Sports commentators are not necessarily experts on sport or politicians on politics. Sportspeople are good at a single role in a sport not all roles and politicians are not experts in politics simply because they were in politics. Real estate agents are again not necessarily experts in valuing a property but perhaps very good at sales.

The point I'm trying to make is don't be fooled by people who claim to be 'experts'. Whilst some truly are (though there is no set definition or classification) many are self proclaimed and are experts through clever PR and marketing. My advice before hiring an experts is to do your own reseach (DYOR) and see if it compares to that of an expert....it might only be the difference between yourself and an expert is reading a couple of pages of a book!