In domains that are not marked by opportunities for effective feedback (e.g., clinical psychology), mere accumulation of experience does not appear to result in growth of decision expertise.
This suggests that an important challenge in software design and leadership are the long feedback geedback loops. A simple example is writing tests in code. We know the savings on maintenance costs make it worthwhile but it can be very difficult for an individual to develop that understanding in isolation. Luckily feedback can also come from experienced peers rather than the work itself which can address this problem in effective teams. This shows in how some teams can stay in the "not sure if tests are worth it" stage for essentially forever while people joining effective orgs learn othe practices very quickly.
If feedback comes from a peer instead of from the work itself then that requires that the recipient respects and believes the feedback giver. Otherwise it may not have that effect.
Ties into the general understanding of how culture (as shared knowledge built up ober time) affects us. How physically we may not be very different from our ancestors but we know hell of a lot more.
