 There's been a lot of airtime, I suppose, around the idea of the 10,000 hours of expertise. Is there anything to that figure of 10,000 hours? I have no idea really about the 10,000 hours. That is, I'm a customer of this. Erickson, who has promoted this figure, is a highly reputable researcher. But it's a crude approximation, I'm sure. I mean, there's nothing magical about 10,000. And I'm sure that it doesn't take the same amount of time to different people, and expertise is not wholly defined, and so on. But it gives you an idea that this is a lot of hours to become an expert where you see that qualitative change in the way things are done, where basically performance switches from what I call system two to system one, that takes a long time. How many hours? I'm not committing myself, and I don't. One of the goals of the course is to kind of cue people to the difference between people who are actual experts and people who simply just claim to be experts. Is there anything that people should watch out for, any red flags, to kind of tell the difference between people who actually know, or can actually do it? Oh, yeah, I mean, I think Gary Klein and I wrote a paper in which we actually suggested an answer. It's embarrassingly simple, but when somebody acts like a self-confident expert on a range of problems, then there's one question to be asked. Did that person have a decent opportunity to learn how to perform the task? And that requires getting feedback on the quality of performance and getting rapid and unequivocal feedback. In the absence of rapid and unequivocal feedback, expertise is just the self-confidence that comes with a lot of experience, and that is uncorrelated with accuracy. This is something we've known for 50 years or more. So if somebody wanted to become an expert at a new task, what's the fastest and most efficient way to turn, as you said, that system two, that effortful sort of processing into system one? Well, there are really two ways of doing this, and you have to use both. You have to use system two. So for somebody to become an expert driver, you have to tell them how to drive. And I would say for somebody to become an expert diagnostician on the basis of X-rays, you have to teach them what those things look like so that they'll be able to recognize them. But then you need also a lot of practice with high-quality feedback. So merely telling people how to do something is not going to turn them into experts, and repeatedly telling them the same thing is not going to help, it's a lot of practice with feedback that creates real expertise. But you can abbreviate the time that it takes to reach expertise by having high-quality instruction about what cues you should be paying attention to. So actually knowing what it is that discriminates the two categories, if it's an abnormal scan versus a normal scan and so on. Harry Klein has a beautiful example, but he talks of a nurse in a cardiac ward who comes home and talks to her father-in-law, as I recall, and says, we have to go to the hospital because he doesn't look good to her. And it turns out that, yes, he had to go to the hospital, he is in deep trouble, he needs 12 hours later or something, he is on the operating table. What she had done, so Gary Klein did what he and others, but I think he is the main guru of this type of enterprise, he found out what the cues were, although she was not aware of the cues that she was using, but he found out that when arteries are obstructed, getting obstructed, which will lead to a heart attack, there is the pattern of distribution of the blood and the face changes. Now she had recognized, she had learned that pattern, but she didn't know what it was. Now when you are training nurses, you can show them the pattern. The goal of the course, the title of the course is the science of everyday thinking. What we are trying to do is to provide people with the ability to think more clearly, argue better, reason better. I suppose learn to use system 2, to be more analytic, unpack, read more carefully and so on. Do you have any advice for somebody in the course who is trying to improve their everyday thinking? Well, my advice would be quite conservative. It would be pick a few areas and pick a few things where you want to change what you are doing and focus on those. Do not expect that you can generally increase the quality of your thinking, because I think you really cannot. If there are repetitive mistakes that you are prone to make, if you learn the cues, the situations in which you make that mistake, then maybe you can learn to eliminate them. The history of success in enterprises like yours is that they are not always successful. People feel great when they hear of all these ways of doing things and of controlling themselves, but then when they are making a mistake they are so busy making it that they have no time to correct it. One of the reasons I think for my skepticism about this is that I don't think my thinking is very much better than it was 40 years ago or 45 years ago when I started doing this work. This suggests some humility. Pick your shots, pick a few areas, and then in those situations that you recognize the situations where you are prone to make a mistake, slow yourself down. One piece of advice by the way is that recognize situations where you can't do it alone, where you need a friend, where you need advice, because if you do it alone you are going to make a mistake. My name is Danny and I think about thinking.