The Federalist: The Death Of Expertise

[Jumbo]

This has been talked about as an a aside many times. Certainly a good topic for our venue.

 

We are fortunate here to have some very impressive, true experts, in some very demanding fields. 

 

There are two areas (in both broad and specific manner) in which I have a high level of expertise (by much evidence).

But in the last few years in particular, I almost always avoid serious discussion threads where I see the topic centers on either area. 

 

In today's world with all that bubbly brain chemistry having access to so many social media platforms and so many perpetually upset and ignorant egos (with way too much time on their hands) married to their indefatigable opinionating, actually knowing stuff about something and having reasonable standards regarding how much aggressively uniformed or outright stupid/obnoxious (even hateful) "discussion" you'll indulge, may make you an "elitist. " 

 

So just buy the t-shirt. 

 

 I exaggerate to get the ball rolling.

 

I will add more on my takes as time allows.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

 

Quote

 

I am (or at least think I am) an expert. Not on everything, but in a particular area of human knowledge, specifically social science and public policy. When I say something on those subjects, I expect that my opinion holds more weight than that of most other people.

 

I never thought those were particularly controversial statements. As it turns out, they’re plenty controversial. Today, any assertion of expertise produces an explosion of anger from certain quarters of the American public, who immediately complain that such claims are nothing more than fallacious “appeals to authority,” sure signs of dreadful “elitism,” and an obvious effort to use credentials to stifle the dialogue required by a “real” democracy.

 

I fear we are witnessing the “death of expertise”: a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any division between professionals and laymen, students and teachers, knowers and wonderers – in other words, between those of any achievement in an area and those with none at all. By this, I do not mean the death of actual expertise, the knowledge of specific things that sets some people apart from others in various areas. There will always be doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other specialists in various fields. Rather, what I fear has died is any acknowledgement of expertise as anything that should alter our thoughts or change the way we live.

 

This is a very bad thing. Yes, it’s true that experts can make mistakes, as disasters from thalidomide to the Challenger explosion tragically remind us. But mostly, experts have a pretty good batting average compared to laymen: doctors, whatever their errors, seem to do better with most illnesses than faith healers or your Aunt Ginny and her special chicken gut poultice. To reject the notion of expertise, and to replace it with a sanctimonious insistence that every person has a right to his or her own opinion, is silly.

 

Worse, it’s dangerous. The death of expertise is a rejection not only of knowledge, but of the ways in which we gain knowledge and learn about things. Fundamentally, it’s a rejection of science and rationality, which are the foundations of Western civilization itself. Yes, I said “Western civilization”: that paternalistic, racist, ethnocentric approach to knowledge that created the nuclear bomb, the Edsel, and New Coke, but which also keeps diabetics alive, lands mammoth airliners in the dark, and writes documents like the Charter of the United Nations.

 

This isn’t just about politics, which would be bad enough. No, it’s worse than that: the perverse effect of the death of expertise is that without real experts, everyone is an expert on everything. To take but one horrifying example, we live today in an advanced post-industrial country that is now fighting a resurgence of whooping cough — a scourge nearly eliminated a century ago — merely because otherwise intelligent people have been second-guessing their doctors and refusing to vaccinate their kids after reading stuff written by people who know exactly zip about medicine. (Yes, I mean people like Jenny McCarthy.

 

In politics, too, the problem has reached ridiculous proportions. People in political debates no longer distinguish the phrase “you’re wrong” from the phrase “you’re stupid.” To disagree is to insult. To correct another is to be a hater. And to refuse to acknowledge alternative views, no matter how fantastic or inane, is to be closed-minded.

 

<edit>

 

Expertise is necessary, and it’s not going away. Unless we return it to a healthy role in public policy, we’re going to have stupider and less productive arguments every day. So here, presented without modesty or political sensitivity, are some things to think about when engaging with experts in their area of specialization.

1.  
2. We can all stipulate: the expert isn’t always right.
3.  
4. But an expert is far more likely to be right than you are. On a question of factual interpretation or evaluation, it shouldn’t engender insecurity or anxiety to think that an expert’s view is likely to be better-informed than yours. (Because, likely, it is.)
5.  
6. Experts come in many flavors. Education enables it, but practitioners in a field acquire expertise through experience; usually the combination of the two is the mark of a true expert in a field. But if you have neither education nor experience, you might want to consider exactly what it is you’re bringing to the argument.
7.  
8. In any discussion, you have a positive obligation to learn at least enough to make the conversation possible. The University of Google doesn’t count. Remember: having a strong opinion about something isn’t the same as knowing something.
9.  
10. And yes, your political opinions have value. Of course they do: you’re a member of a democracy and what you want is as important as what any other voter wants. As a layman, however, your political analysis, has far less value, and probably isn’t — indeed, almost certainly isn’t — as good as you think it is.
11.  

And how do I know all this? Just who do I think I am?

 

Well, of course: I’m an expert.

 

Tom Nichols is a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct at the Harvard Extension School. He claims expertise in a lot of things, but his most recent book is No Use: Nuclear Weapons and U.S. National Security (Penn, 2014). The views expressed are entirely his own

 

 

 

 

 

 

<end of excerpts>

 

It's a long piece, so here are some paragraph headers from the rest:

 

How conversation became exhausting

 

The downside of no gatekeepers

 

The confidence of the dumb

 

Experts: the servants, not masters, of a democracy

 

 

It might be cool if one is industrious enough to be reading un-posted sections and is moved to address them, that they quote that part of the article in their post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jumbo]

While there's good reason to keep the author's focus, I'd add for context (cuz it will arise) that recognition of expertise via "firsthand" experience as "expertise" is valid when merited by actual competency displayed.

 

And being "expert" in/at any skill/craft is the same for this discussion as any other form of expert.

 

One area of exploration is why some forms of expertise (and topics) are more subject to aggressive lay challenges than others. It happens most, of course, in matters where  self-identity (ego), insecurity (even those who believe they are "sure" of their self), and emotional investments in the topic play big.

 

In many venues such as ours, I'd suggest that biologists will face more auto mechanics arguing assertively with them about biological premises re: evolution than auto mechanics will find biologists assertively arguing with them about maintenance premises re: timing belts. There are various reasons or dynamics going on, and some are obvious, and some are more elusive. 

[Springfield]

If I had a dollar for every time some schmuck walked into my shop and told me EXACTLY what was wrong with their vehicle according to google...

 

Jesus Christ is that annoying.

[Jumbo]

48 minutes ago, Springfield said:

If I had a dollar for every time some schmuck walked into my shop and told me EXACTLY what was wrong with their vehicle according to google...

 

Jesus Christ is that annoying.

 

 

Yup, that does happen with "everything" to greater and lesser extent, people being people. It happens here a lot.  

 

I'd have plenty of c-o-c-k-y guys  come into my stores who "knew all about audio" (in any category---2 ch, home theater, car, installations, etc) and act the fool/ass in various ways. There's a lot of variety in whats and whys with people doing this stuff.

 

The piece of course is mostly about certain aspects of these kind of behaviors in specific contexts , primarily sociopolitical discourse, but having a generally c-o-c-k-y o attitude or being "loud and ignorant" is popular with many, no mistake, particularly in our culture for some time.

 

Just the base "challenging authority" deal or the "preening/show-off" deal or the plain overfed ego ( i know i'm as smart as i think i am) can get many going easy enough...

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I'm a pretty good football coach. Fortunately that is an area where people always recognize their lack of knowledge and nobody has ever thought they knew what I should be doing (or should have done).

[twa]

I was a lousy baseball coach, yet did what others couldn't.

I exploit weaknesses well in most things.

[Corcaigh]

22 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

guys  come into my stores who "knew all about audio" (in any category---2 ch, home theater, car, installations, etc) and act the fool/ass in various ways.

 

 

Which one is you?

 

 

[Destino]

"Personal truth" and "lived in reality" respond to expertise and data that disagrees with claims of "silencing" and "shaming."  The electorate delighted in fake news and the current administration uses the phrase "alternative facts" without a hint of irony or shame.  Validation over education.  Feelings over facts.  Welcome to the future!  (Still no flying cars because the elitist environmentalists, and greedy oil companies, don't want us to be happy.)

 

On the bright side, I imagine that experts, with fancy credentials and experience but without shame, are finding it real easy to make money right now. 

 

[LD0506]

Damn you J, damn you all to hell. That was arguably the most pertinent and depressing thing I've read lately, a bitter offering at breakfast time.

 

And sadly, the way back from that fog of righteous ignorance is unclear, if even possible.

[Riggo-toni]

People who think they know everything are so very annoying to those of us who do.

[AsburySkinsFan]

[tshile]

There is nothing more depressing (to me, currently) then having a conversation come up, and pointing out what experts in the field say, and having the other person go straight to:

- demeaning the profession (especially academia)

- making it a political party thing

- refuting it with information that comes from a source that pales in comparison re: credentials

 

The number of people that don't know the difference between an opinion piece on msnbc/foxnews/cnn or  'research'/a 'study' from a political think tank, and something published in a (respected and) peer reviewed journal is just inexcusable.

 

There are articles on certain style websites that if you click the links for the source material, never get you to source material that says what the article claims it did... this works, because people lack the basic desire/intuition/critical thinking skills to even attempt to verify information.

Some points about the article:

The conversation became exhausting - i see that. The field I qualify as an expert in isn't really argued much  - the tech field doesn't see the arguing from non-experts as badly as, say... climate change, or foreign policy, or economics. Most people still default to "I don't know anything about computers" which is nice. But I could see how an expert in other fields would say to hell with it..

 

My favorite quote:
 

Quote

Tackle a complex policy issue with a layman today, and you will get snippy and sophistic demands to show ever increasing amounts of “proof” or “evidence” for your case, even though the ordinary interlocutor in such debates isn’t really equipped to decide what constitutes “evidence” or to know it when it’s presented.

It's so true.

 

His bullet points for how to fix it is nice and all, but not really actionable.

 

The politicians have made a great livelihood out of the 'us vs them' battle, and they've run that mentality so deep through our culture, that I don't see a way out. Critical thinking seems lost. Opinions are formed before a person can be considered well informed on any particular issue - hell, most people don't even know how to realistically determine how informed they are.

 

[LD0506]

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

His bullet points for how to fix it is nice and all, but not really actionable.

 

 

^^This

 

I know it may seem harsh but I am of the opinion that a lot of the problems we suffer from are self-inflicted and a result of our success as a species in widening the demographics of survival. Nature culling the herd was historically a positive force, and we have eliminated/short circuited it in many ways.

 

Malthus understood the dynamics

There is an answer, but you're not gonna like it.........

 

 

As a species we are always on the cusp of some ELE, food, water, disease, war, stupidity in all its forms, and we have been through these before (think Black Plague). It doesn't need to be complete to have world altering effects. Survival demands, demands consciousness and intelligence and paying attention to real **** instead of wasting your days with goofy delusions. The next population bottleneck will solve most of these issues simply by killing off the too-stupid-to-live and require the remainder to live by the "Don't be that guy!" rule. A millennium later the lesson will be taught again.

[AsburySkinsFan]

In my time as clergy I ran into this constantly. (I'm not even talking about theist vs atheist arguments) Most often it was from other believers who were simply wrong on facts, implications, conclusions, and applications. And like the article stated, saying you're wrong was heard as "you're stupid", but when talking on matters of faith it grew a deeper layer because now it wasn't just their intelligence that was being questioned but their faith...and intelligence they can live without! "That's just what I believe" became the ultimate trump card because personal belief is more important than whether that personal belief is well founded or even in line with what the text actually says. So, my 10 years of study was reduced to meaninglessness with a brush of the hand. Nothing was more infuriating, because it made teaching impossible. 

 

And for those keeping score, that was reason #3 I left the pulpit.

[Riggo-toni]

Not hard for me to imagine your travails, ASF. I grew up with devout but also very well educated parents, so intellect/science and faith were never mutually exclusive. I developed an intense curiosity about Judeo-Christian history/archaeology/theology (which eventually blossomed into a hunger for knowledge of all things ancient near east to the modern middle east). Eventually I realized so much of what I had been taught based on English(KJV) translations didn't hold up in the original Hebrew or in the full context of the historical background, or even the text in its entirety (being taught a single verse is proof of x doctrine, but when the entire chapter or book is read, it's clear the author's intention is y).

[Jumbo]

@Riggo-toni and you found that was one big onion to keep peeling 

 

We have some similarities in our backgrounds. you would have likely enjoyed by Jesuit priest cousin (very smart) who ended up leaving the church (also an Alaskan bush pilot priest during the 50's and 60's. Being interrupted---had more; later.

 

[JCB]

Can't like tshile's post enough! 

[NoCalMike]

Somewhere along the way it seems like pundits became the "real experts" on everything.  They are the ones politicizing everything, but then will turn around and claim the actual experts of respective fields as politicizing things because the provided data doesn't match with whatever the rallying cry of the hour is.

[tshile]

My new favorite part is that it was written 2014

 

 

Things are so much worse now

 

 

 

3 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Somewhere along the way it seems like pundits became the "real experts" on everything.  They are the ones politicizing everything, but then will turn around and claim the actual experts of respective fields as politicizing things because the provided data doesn't match with whatever the rallying cry of the hour is.

Try explaining to the average Republican that the current debt is not the worse we've had as a country, and that the debt to gdp ratio post WW2 was worse, that we got through it, and that 2 long wars with a global financial crisis can be viewed in similar light to WW2 when talking about the financial strains on the country, the debt accumulated, etc.

 

Make sure you're about 10 feet away because after their eyes stop popping out of their head they'll try to strangle you 

[NoCalMike]

45 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Try explaining to the average Republican that the current debt is not the worse we've had as a country, and that the debt to gdp ratio post WW2 was worse, that we got through it, and that 2 long wars with a global financial crisis can be viewed in similar light to WW2 when talking about the financial strains on the country, the debt accumulated, etc.

 

 

 To further your point I was driving home from work and good ol' Larry Elder put up a poll regarding the CBO's score of Trump and whether people "trust it" now given the audience, 14% said yeah they trust it........it's this kind of stuff that I just give up trying to reason with.  When did the CBO magically become this partisan organization that can't be trusted because they are "out to get Trump"

[twa]

The CBO does a good job within the parameters it must operate under.

 

The public is not bound in the same way.

 

If I must assume certain things does not reflect reality in many cases.

[NoCalMike]

4 minutes ago, twa said:

The CBO does a good job within the parameters it must operate under.

 

The public is not bound in the same way.

 

If I must assume certain things does not reflect reality in many cases.

 

Aww yes, just like the employment rate before Obama and during Obama were magically calculated differently as to paint his progress in the most negative light possible (even if there was some truth to the criticism) 

[twa]

staff edit

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Aww yes, just like the employment rate before Obama and during Obama were magically calculated differently as to paint his progress in the most negative light possible (even if there was some truth to the criticism) 

I think his criticism is spot on.

 

The cbo is limited. It, like everything else, is not perfect.

 

I dont think he was dismissing the cbo.

 

The truth is I don't think many people know what cbo stands for, much less how it is staffed, what it is charged with, and how it conducts its business ...

 

In the article it talks about how people used to observe, they used to listen to experts.  The cbo would be an expert in that case.

 

But now the experts voice is put on the same level as Sean Hannity. More people can recite what Sean Hannity said about whatever last week than they can say anything about the cbo on aca, or trump's plan, or tax policies or anything else.

 

And those very same people have incredibly strong opinions on those subject. They have no idea how uninformed they are...

[AsburySkinsFan]

staff edit