In continuation to yesterday's blog-isode, some people solve certain problems better than others do.
source
One reason is experience. The trained mechanic is more likely to hit on the why and wherefore of automotive failure than his young apprentice.
But what exactly does experience contribute?
A major factor is chunking, which plays a similar role in problem solving to that played in the execution of various skills.
Experts approach a problem in different ways than beginners. They think in larger units whose components are already contained within them and thus require no further thought.
An interesting demonstration of how chunking makes the master, comes from a study of chess players conducted by the Dutch psychologist Adrian De Groot whose findings have been corroborated and extended by several American investigators.
Source
The chess world ranks its members according to a ruthlessly objective hierarchy of merit based on a simple record of who beats whom. Grandmasters are at the top, followed by masters, experts, down to Class D players at the lower rungs of the chess ladder.
De Groot, who is good at chess, gave different chess challenges to people in each group. He asked them, including two people who were once world champions, to pick the best move.
All of the masters chose continuations that would have won the game, while few of the other players did.
But why?
De Groot and many later theorists believed that the reason was in the way the players organized the problem.
The chess master structures the chess position in terms of broad strategic concepts.
For instance, a king - side attack with pawns, from which many of the appropriate moves follow naturally.
In effect, the master has a "chess vocabulary" of more and larger chunks. If so, one would expect him to grasp a chess position in a shorter time.
This is indeed the case.
Individuals of varying skill levels were presented with chess positions for a brief period, after which they were tasked with recreating them a few minutes later.
While grandmasters and masters demonstrated near-perfect accuracy, those of lower proficiency, including mere experts, exhibited considerably poorer performance.
The reason isn't that chess masters have superior visual memory. Even when shown unusual positions that rarely occur in typical games, their ability to recall them is no better than that of beginners.
Source
Their strength lies in how they organize their thoughts about chess, not just in remembering how the pieces look.
Some later studies have shown that the superiority of the chess masters is not entirely produced by better chunking. They are also better in evaluating chess positions and look further ahead in their mental calculations.
But chunking clearly plays a role in this mental skill, just as it does in typing, and various athletic pursuits.
At least in part, the essence of expertise is twofold.
To begin with, experts know more than novices. And in addition , they have developed an organization of the relevant subcomponents, which allows them to solve their problems in terms of fewer but vastly larger steps.
Whether the skill is reading or typing or playing a musical instrument, its mastery depends on the acquisition of newer and better chunkings.
I guess this is enough information to take in for a day. 🤔 We will continue tomorrow.
The Bus Stops Here for today:
Thank you, friends, for staying with me through these blogisodes. Your thoughts and opinions are always welcome and appreciated. I'd be happy to hear them. We will build on this in tomorrow's blogisode. Until then, stay safe, friends.♥️
References and Links:
https://en.chessbase.com/post/adriaan-de-groot-che-psychologist-1914-2006-
https://www.wired.com/2010/11/the-cognitive-cost-of-expertise/