"All good things must come to an end"

A good decision-maker should aim to keep a 'shadow of a doubt,' not to be the 'man who knew too much.'

Intelligence is only part of the story, however. how people think is also important. Perhaps we should pick the most thoughtful, open-minded person, rather than the smartest one.

Although no single measure or scale unambiguously predicts judgment quality, you may want to look for the sort of people who actively search for new information that could contradict their prior beliefs, who are methodical in integrating that information into their current perspective, and who are willing, even eager, to change their minds as a result.

Focusing on the process of judgment, rather than its outcome, makes it possible to evaluate the quality of judgments that are not verifiable, such as judgments about fictitious problems or long-term forecasts. We may not be able to compare them to a known outcome, but we can still tell whether they have been made incorrectly. And when we turn to the question of improving judgments rather than just evaluating them, we will focus on process, too.

In summary, what people usually claim to strive for in verifiable judgments is a prediction that matches the outcome. What they are effectively trying to achieve, regardless of verifiability, is the internal signal of completion provided by the coherence between the facts of the case and the judgment. And that they should be trying to achieve, normatively speaking, is the judgment process that would produce the best judgment over an ensemble of similar cases.

In other words, good judgments depend on what you know, how well you think, and how you think. Good judges tend to be experienced and smart, but they also tend to be actively open-minded and willing to learn from new information.

Good decision-making must be based on objective and accurate predictive judgments that are completely unaffected by hopes and fears, or by preferences and values.

Often a sign of expertise is noticing what doesn't happen.

Novices who are thoroughly incompetent rate themselves as very confident in their ability to do a thing they’ve just learned to do. By contrast, genuine experts know how difficult their work is, so they are realistic about their competence and thus rate their confidence in their own abilities as moderate, even as their performance is, of course, expert-level.

An expert is someone who knows some of the worst mistakes that can be made in his subject, and how to avoid them.

At what point do you become qualified to talk about leadership, as a leader? 

“You can’t tell me who I am!”

The Tendency To Be A Bad Leader -A Leader’s Selfishness