Tacit knowledge is more important than deliberate practice
Readers who are interested in the actionable aspects of this topic should probably read the last instalment in this series: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;commoncog.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;accelerated-expertise&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;commoncog.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;accelerated-expertise&#x2F;</a><p>The basic idea is this:<p>1. Deliberate practice only works for skills with a history of good pedagogical development. If no such pedagogical development exists, you can’t do DP. Source: read Peak, or any of Ericsson’s original papers. Don’t read third party or popsci accounts of DP.<p>2. Once you realise this, then the next question you should ask is how can you learn effectively in a skill domain where no good pedagogical development exists? Well, it turns out a) the US military wanted answers to exactly this question, and b) a good subsection of the expertise research community wondered exactly the same thing.<p>3. The trick is this: use cognitive task analysis to extract tacit knowledge from the heads of existing experts. These experts built their expertise through trial and error and luck, not DP. But you can extract their knowledge as a shortcut. After this, you use the extracted tacit knowledge to create a case library of simulations. Sort the simulations according to difficulty to use as training programs. Don’t bother with DP — the pedagogical development necessary for DP to be successful simply takes too long.<p>Broadly speaking, DP and tacit knowledge extraction represent two different takes on expertise acquisition. For an overview of this, read the Oxford Handbook of Expertise and compare against the Cambridge Handbook of Expertise. The former represents the tacit knowledge extraction approach; the latter represents the DP approach. Both are legitimate approaches, but one is more tractable when you find yourself in a domain with underdeveloped training methods (like most of the skill domains necessary for success in one’s career).