Issue高频~初学者是否比专家贡献多？请大家看看~特别欢迎交流~THX！

greenfish7

In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions.


Words: 398(508)
Time: 31:15


Beginners, who are in the insipient stage of development, often receive the most concerns about their potentials. A provocative question never ceases haunting the public: is it more likely for beginners to make important contributions than experts? Undeniably, experts consist of the substratum of the mansion of a field, and they have contributed much to the development as a whole. Nevertheless, it happens that experts find themselves on a precarious slope toward dogmatism and empiricism, which would impede their ensuing thinking and decision making. After all, more frequently it is the novice who really discovered something seminal and consequential.


It’s true that from a vantage point experts serve as cornerstones, establishing the foundations of a field, as well as beacon in dark night, directing the newly born heading for the right way. Let’s consider the dual identities of an influential finance professor in a college. On one hand, for students, professor acts as a mentor, and what he or she should concern is whether students are thinking in a practicable way. Furthermore, being an expert, professors’ approval to students is as a placebo to the anxiety and uncertainty residing in their hearts, without which they would otherwise be frustrated and discouraged to move on. On the other hand, for scholars who are on the same level as the professor, his or her statements and papers which have exerted much impact on finance and are widely accepted, would be the basic assumptions that other scholars compete to cite. In light of this, the professor as an expert is assuredly contributing to the whole field.


However, it does happen that professors, who have established a systematical scheme of scholarship, would be more inclined to be obdurate than others would. The more successful he/she is, the more likely he/she becomes authoritative; the more authoritative he/she is, the more likely he/she becomes pertinacious. This sometimes can impede not only their own thinking but also argument with others, and thus hinders advancement to a certain extent.


In reality, more frequently it is the young and tyro who make the most important contributions to a certain field. Hanhan, one of the most famous writers in China, published his novels at his 20s, and he then was called by many critics a talent writer. Gauss, the excellent mathematician, physicist, as well as astronomer, accomplished his PHD at age of 22, and published celebrated Arithmetic Research at age of 24. Messi, being one of the most valuable Argentina football players in the world, presented his extraordinary flexibility and velocity in his famous play of passing 5 persons at one time. All of these can lend credibility to my contention. After all, it is the tyros who are the most seminal, audacious and pliable to changing that are most likely to bring about revolutions.


On balance, admittedly experts play an important role in determining how the field will develop in the future, but their empiricism is in fact not conducive to contributions made by others. After all, it is the beginners who make actually crucial contributions.

竹林中人

mark，明天来拍

竹林中人

After all, more frequently it is the novice who really discovered something seminal and consequential.这句话没弄明白

竹林中人

这个文章感觉你的观点是一边倒的，但你的内容却不够完整的，你的例子还是不够有说服力，韩寒不能说他的文学成就现在就有多高，最好能举些耳熟能详的