Ran across an interesting article just now on this. Please note I am
just adding this to the discussion, not using it as justification one
way or the other. I do not have a PhD, have often toyed with getting
one (in organizational psych) and have opinions on both sides of the
issue. Real-world fact though is that PhDs give credibility and
accreditation to outside observers, whatever we may think from closer
in.
Here-
You Know More Than You Know | Wired Science | Wired.com
FIrst paragraph:
" There’s a fascinating new paper in Psychological Science by the
Dutch psychologist Ap Dijksterhuis on the virtues of unconscious
thought when it comes to predicting the outcome of soccer matches. It
turns out that the conscious brain – that rational voice in your head
deliberating over the alternatives – gets in the way of expertise.
Although we tend to think of experts as being weighted down by
information, their intelligence dependent on a vast set of explicit
knowledge, this experiment suggests that successful experts don’t
consciously access these facts. When they evaluate a situation, they
don’t systematically compare all the available soccer teams or analyze
the relevant players. They don’t rely on elaborate spreadsheets or
athletic statistics or long lists of pros and cons. Instead,
Dijksterhuis’ study suggests that the best experts naturally depend on
their unconscious mind, on that subterranean warehouse of feelings,
hunches and instincts...."
....
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
