I think the authors of this experiment were afraid to draw the correct (and obvious) conclusions from it. If a phony “expert” doesn’t immediately stand out among the “real” ones during collaborative expert work, there are only two plausible hypotheses. The milder one is that the particular business transacted there is just a phony pretense, and the stronger one is that the entire field of expertise is as phony as a three dollar bill.
The experimenters, however, themselves have prominent positions within the same system, so instead we get a rambling discussion that evades the obvious issues.
Well, the most obvious is that people not in the same field are bad at detecting expertise. But I suppose there are even more—one could blame the audience as much as you blame the subject, that is, psychology professors :P Or you could guess at response bias—maybe people are bad at admitting they didn’t understand something.
I think the authors of this experiment were afraid to draw the correct (and obvious) conclusions from it. If a phony “expert” doesn’t immediately stand out among the “real” ones during collaborative expert work, there are only two plausible hypotheses. The milder one is that the particular business transacted there is just a phony pretense, and the stronger one is that the entire field of expertise is as phony as a three dollar bill.
The experimenters, however, themselves have prominent positions within the same system, so instead we get a rambling discussion that evades the obvious issues.
Those are not the only two plausible hypotheses, particularly because the phony expert was presenting to psychology professors et al.
What would be the alternative hypotheses according to you?
Well, the most obvious is that people not in the same field are bad at detecting expertise. But I suppose there are even more—one could blame the audience as much as you blame the subject, that is, psychology professors :P Or you could guess at response bias—maybe people are bad at admitting they didn’t understand something.