Science Says a Lifetime of Experience Is No Guarantee
Over at the Slog, they've tossed some fresh meat to the slavering Obama and Clinton hounds: video of Clinton repeating three or four times that she and McCain have a lifetime of experience to draw upon, while Obama has "a speech he made in 2002."
Which makes this TIME article about the value of experience especially topical:
[Anders] Ericsson's primary finding is that rather than mere experience or even raw talent, it is dedicated, slogging, generally solitary exertion--repeatedly practicing the most difficult physical tasks for an athlete, repeatedly performing new and highly intricate computations for a mathematician--that leads to first-rate performance.Ericsson, author of the Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, puts it another way: "The number of years of experience in a domain is a poor predictor of attained performance."
TIME keeps all this science mumbo-jumbo on point...and inconclusive:
Which is not to say that, if elected, Clinton or John McCain would drive the country off a cliff--or that Obama, as a comparative novice, would be more cautious and less burdened by his habits. But the study of experience does indicate that the more seasoned candidates wouldn't automatically outperform Obama as President. On the other hand, Ericsson's conclusion that deliberate practice leads to better performance might favor the punctilious, famously diligent Clinton.Thanks for nothing, TIME. Okay, there is one last thing to consider: the research indicates that experience can be a wash if the rules have changed. So, have they?
Contact the author of this article or email tips@seattlest.com with further questions, comments or tips.
