Skip navigation.

Intuition and The Expert Mind

other online resources
[textile] If you haven't read James' post on intuition, please do. Once complete, scroll further down his blog and read my response. When out working with James shortly after that post, he had me read The Expert Mind by Philip E. Ross. The article gave me a new word, apperception, the process of understanding by which newly observed qualities of an object are related to past experience. Some other interesting tidbits from the article:
Without a demonstrably immense superiority in skill over the novice, there can be no true experts, only laypeople with imposing credentials. Such, alas, are all too common. Rigorous studies in the past two decades have shown that professional stock pickers invest no more successfully than amateurs, that noted connoisseurs distinguish wines hardly better than yokels, and that highly credentialed psychiatric therapists help patients no more than colleagues with less advanced degrees. And even when expertise undoubtedly exists--as in, say, teaching or business management--it is often hard to measure, let alone explain.
...what matters is not experience per se but "effortful study," which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence.
...experts-in-training keep the lid of their mind's box open all the time, so that they can inspect, criticize and augment its contents and thereby approach the standard set by leaders in their fields.
Here's to effortful study by all the experts-in-training reading TestingReflections. I really like articles like this. If you know of any others, please post them below. For example, if you like chess then I recommend Attack & Defence by Dvoretsky and Yusupov. In this book, Dvoretsky talks about using intuition in time-limited situations. He also gives examples of effortful study within chess and provides some sources of chess intuition.
"...intensive analysis of concrete situations--this significantly develops and enriches our intuition." -Dvoretsky
[/textile]

Experience isn't a requirement for exploratory testing

[textile] Experience isn't a requirement for exploratory testing, but certainly, as with anything, experience can help. An "experienced" Java programmer (whatever that means) will (in theory) write better code then a Java programmer out of college. That doesn't mean the Java programmer out of college can't write code - they can. They just don't have the same experience to draw on. The same is true with exploratory testing: experience can be good, but is not required. Notice I said can be, because the wrong experience can be bad. I recently witnessed my wife engage in an exploratory process. She got a new Mac PowerBook from work and wanted to change the desktop picture, but knows nothing about Macs. I offered her help, but she told me she wanted to learn how to do it on her own. I sat there and watched her process of exploration:
  • She modified her model of how an operating system should be have. She had a model of Windows. She evolved it as she tested it against the Mac OS and found that they two don't match.
  • She manipulated the OS and observed her results. Trying different things, noticing what seemed to get her closer and what didn't.
  • When I asked why she though a certain path through the operating system would get her to the desktop, she was able to form a reasonable conjecture for someone who hasn't worked with a Mac before but has only worked with Windows. Now here is where experience comes into play. Perhaps a more experienced explorer can make more informed conjectures.
  • She asked me very focused questions from time to time.
  • At one point she got side tracked looking at desktop images online, recognized that she still hadn't even figured out how to change the desktop, and switched back to looking for how to complete that task.
  • I noticed her moving between different polarities in her techniques.
She was exploring. She is not a tester. She's not even someone who works in computers. She's a teacher. Think about what exploration is. It's a process of discovery, learning, and testing ideas. Exploratory testing is a specific application of an exploratory process. My wife exhibited many of the same skills and tactics that I use when I explore while testing. If I'm hiring exploratory testers, I'll look for all the Jon Bach's, Michael Bolton's, Jonathan Kohl's, and Paul Carvalho's that I can find. That said, there are plenty of great testers out there who don't have the same past experience that Jonathan, Michael, Jon, and Paul have who will still be excellent exploratory testers. A weak exploratory tester is one who only relies on apperception and intuition. Apperception and intuition are not what make Jonathan, Michael, Jon, and Paul great testers. It's their knowledge of testing, their use of the various skills and tactics of the exploratory process, and their high level of cognition. Find anyone with those attributes, and you'll find an expert exploratory tester - regardless of past experience. [/textile]

Intuition =? apperception

Always, referring to intuition I was referring to brainpower you referred to as apperception. It seems this misconnect was reason for my comment on James blog (as well as few more comments). Even Dvoretsky use the term intuition in the book you mentioned.
One issue there however is that James advocate Exploratory testing don’t need expertise/experience. While I believe that only The Expert Mind – Tester will do really good exploratory testing. I’m not sure if he try to say that tester training should be done in a different way – to help tester to use apperception as the most powerful tool along with logic and (requirement) analyze.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.