Could A Lone Amateur Ever Be Better Than A Group Of Expert Professionals?

Question

..
A lone Amateur is said to have Built the Successful 'Ark'.

Whereas, A Large Group of Amazing Professionals Built the Ill-fated 'Titanic'.

How can we explain these phenomena?

"Titanic' proved that 'a ship in harbor is safe but that's not what ships are for.'

Any such Individual feats & group failures?

Just wondering!
..

..
Please note the word, 'EVER' in the question.

A lone amateur can't stand in comparison to a group of professionals. No doubt about it. Agreed in toto.

But how do we explain individual attempts succeeding & group endeavors failing?

That's the issue under consideration here.

Froggy: you've a point!

Alfie: you have a valid point.

Many brilliant analyses. Highly interesting ones.

The instigator: you've done a good study of the worrldly practices. A thought-provoking in-depth analysis. Thanks a lot.

Answer 1

I've always liked the saying, "In the beginners mind there are many possibilities; in the experts mind there are few."

Generally, however, a lone amateur is only better when the field that the experts are expert in is inappropriate for the problem they are trying to solve. Experts in allopathic medicine, for example, can be easily outdone in certain situations by anyone practicing preventative medicine. The amateur might say, "go jogging every now and then, cut out the red meat." while the experts will just say, "who wants heart surgery? we're very good at it." That example is intentionally oversimplified, but medicine is such a complex field that there are few 'generalist experts', and besides that, the system has become corrupt and is slipping into a pattern of 'sell them the milk, not the cow' methodology. So there is one place.

Then take politics... same problem; a system so corrupt that expertise in the field is a hindrance at times. When Mr. Smith goes to Washington, it's no wonder that the true goal of a democracy - rule by the people - is better served. So I say send in the amateurs.

All fields and sciences had a beginning somewhere, and every problem should be reapproached from time to time. At the very least, the experts need to step back and look at their work.

Answer 2

Good Question! ^_^

I think a lot of it has to do with a sort of "alien versus robot" mentality. To elaborate: the person who is an "alien" acts alone doing *his own* thing, while the "robot" is more about blending in with the group and following the group's initiative.

Meaning? The person following his own leads, the whole alien/gifted amateur thing, doesn't often succeed, but when he or she does, the success is fairly big, as it was with the Wright Brothers, or with Thomas Edison early on in his career. Whereas....with the robot/expert/professional approach, the *group* of professionals don't fail very often, but when they do, they fail early and *over and over* again over the same issues, as the early Renaissance scientists did over trying to make flying machines "birdlike" or "insectlike"--they succeeded in making small, hand-held gliders work, but didn't really get it that the methods didn't scale up.

Basically, what it boils down to is, do you think Inside the Box, working with what "everyone says" is true and take no risks, or do you go for thinking Outside the Box, doing your own thing and your own ideas, and risk missing the point entirely in an attempt to *get* the point the Group keeps missing?

That's the thing. You have to look at the Expert Group's track record, look at how high-percentage their combined efforts are, both historically and *recently*, and try to figure out if the *risk* of not getting it is worth the possible "reward" of being right a higher percentage of the time. Or....

You have to look at the Gifted Amateur's ideas, look at what he or she brings to the table, and *see if* their Thinking Outside of the Box actually brings something notable to the table. Notice my choice of words....sometimes the Outsider answers questions that people In the Expert Group *aren't willing to ask* yet.

And yes....a certain fellow with really *big hair* who plays the violin comes to mind here. ^_^ In this day and age it's hard to imagine how Einstein *couldn't* be a part of big, mainstream science, but in his own day, Albert Einstein really *was* the "gifted amateur", in the sense that most of his peers in the world of physics and mathematics looked down their noses at him, doubted every thing he said, and just generally thought he didn't "belong here". He didn't become an accepted member of the *mainstream* Expert Group until *late* in his life and career, *after* he had done his work on Relativity.

Which is rather like how Tom Edison ended up becoming a *mainstream* expert, respected by the system, only *after* he had spent *years* quietly doing his own thing, working and sweating over failed Light Bulb designs long after most folks had given up on "his folly". His peers within the Expert Group of his day didn't treat him with *any respect* until *after* he had produced and *proven them wrong*.

And in the early days, this was worse. Galileo died an outsider, hated by the Expert Groups of his day. So did Socrates.

And so, for that matter, did Farnsworth. You know, the guy who invented *television*, or more specifically, the cathode ray tube? Him.

So....what I'd say is....while the Expert Groups are better and better these days, the truth is, they owe a *debt* to the Lone Amateurs who have proven them wrong, time and again.

If we didn't have "aliens" among us--people willing to do their own thing and pursue their own thoughts--the state of the "robots" within those Expert Groups would be rather sorry indeed.

Even the brightest Groups of Followers need a Leader sometimes.

Thanks for your time. ^_^ Have a star.

Answer 3

The professionals have lots money and so call "know how" and the amateur doesnt have money but he has an edge on the big boys. He can do the job at less cost and still come out on top . I have seen this in furniture business all my life. Somehow the top dogs lose their butts thinking they know it all. Then the little smaller man comes in and picks up the pieces and starts his little business. Its not how big you are its how you fall. Its not how small you are but what to do with success when you get it.

Answer 4

The reason is because the amateur does not have to maintain any deadlines or budgets that can interfere with the final results. The amateur can take his or her entire life to finish their research and spend as much as he or she wishes, including entire inheritances. If successful the amateur quite often becomes a professional.

Answer 5

That would be Professor Samuel Langley and the Smithsonian Institution's ill-fated(and well-funded) attempts to build the Aerodrome, which was touted as being the first "flying machine".
Two bicycle mechanics from Dayton finally got it right.

Answer 6

Yes, often , because a group compromises between right and wrong, and a group of experts all tend to think the same way. A random poll often produces a good answer. Like on this Q&A site.

Answer 7

Coincidence. An amateur like Warren Buffet founded a Fund years ago and is now one of the wealthiest men in th world, So much, that had you invested $1000.00 in his Fund in 1956, it would be worth $27,000,000.00 today. How's that for an amateur vis-a-vis the pundits of Wall Street?

Answer 8

There is no difference in amatuers and professional except the education level. Just because they have a degree doesn't make them any smarter than the the lone individual.

Answer 9

What about all the bigger ships built since then.
Besides which , there is no evidence Noah even existed let alone built the alleged Ark. And if I remember the fairytale correctly, he had his sons to help.

Answer 10

I'm not sure how to answer exactly. A lot has to do with religious beliefs. I do have my doubts that one man build a ship large enough to carry 2 of every animal on earth in it.