I became an expert on many things in my late teens and early twenties. In my thirties and forties i was'nt too sure, and after that I began to realise that I had just scratched the surface. Now, in my seventies, I realise how little I actually know about all sorts of things!
All very consistent with "The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing" (Socrates, via Bill & Ted).
I realise that I actually know very little and that there is much more still to know, but I would put myself firmly in the beginner category.
The thing is that this is all relative to quite a significant degree. I know how much more there is for me to know, and I know that compared to many people, and by the standards of various specialist internet forums like this one, I'm definitely not an expert. However compared to the majority of the population and literally everyone who I know outside of a zoo/birding/wildlife/etc. specific context, I am an 'expert'.
Well I think that's really the question. If I know more than ignorant people am I an expert? Personally I think that is setting the bar rather low.
Certainly, and I would never unironically refer to myself as an expert at anything, hence the inverted commas around 'expert'. Anyone who refers to themselves as an expert tends to be ignorant about a topic, as you suggest. However, I'm not comparing myself to someone who is particularly ignorant, I'm just comparing myself to people who are in general well read and well educated and have a wide general knowledge, but not a specific special interest in animals/zoos (the latter in particular being a particularly niche field to be knowledgeable about). In that sort of context, I would probably consider myself to be 'knowledgeable' about a particular subject.
That's great in theory, but not really very practical, don't you think? (this may be a slightly unpopular opinion)
I just don’t see why people see the need to define themselves as one thing or another. You’re still the person that you are, regardless of a label.
I also don’t believe that what you do as a day job defines who you are. To use the same example, if that same doctor decides to retire, chooses to change career or is struck off the medical register for some reason, do they automatically become somebody else? People are people. Why do they have to fit into one category or another? Can’t they just be themselves?
I found myself reading a discussion on a distance running forum last week about what constitutes 'elite'. You would be astonished (perhaps) at how high many in that community were arguing for the bar to be set, and how toxic the language of the discussion seemed to be. There is a danger I think that people at a certain level of anything who have invested time to get there want to feel 'linguistically rewarded' by being given labels, and will often try to prevent that label from being extended below them due to it then somehow being cheapened. This is just insecurity, perhaps understandable insecurity. The average long-term ZooChat member probably knows more quotable facts about zoos than almost anybody on the planet, but they also very likely have no experience of working in or running a zoo. So what to call them? There are members who can pretty much tell you anything about the history of a particular zoo who I wouldn't hesitate to call experts, but the more commonly seen high level of knowledge is more difficult to define.
