Just giving a short table-summary of an article by James Shanteau on which areas and tasks experts developed a good intuition - and which ones they didn't. Though the article is old, the results seem to be in agreement with more recent summaries, such as Kahneman and Klein's. The heart of the article was a decomposition of characteristics (for professions and for tasks within those professions) where we would expert experts to develop good performance:
Good performance | Poor performance |
---|---|
Static stimuli Decisions about things Experts agree on stimuli More predictable problems Some errors expected Repetitive tasks Feedback available Objective analysis available Problem decomposable Decision aids common |
Dynamic (changeable) stimuli Decisions about behavior Experts disagree on stimuli Less predictable problems Few errors expected Unique tasks Feedback unavailable Subjective analysis only Problem not decomposable Decision aids rare |
I do feel that this may go some way to explaining the expert's performance here.
The chart gives on and only one hint - do something to move your problem from the hard column to the easy column.