I have been stewing about this question in general for a while. When I look back at my long (so far) life, I think of the many times I have been misled by so-called experts.
From which I learned that experts, even real ones:
Are subject to massive cognitive biases, without realizing it. One common one is the filtering of data based on prior beliefs, not updating when new evidence comes along. Science advances funeral by funeral.
Are often influenced by mercenary motives, and are frequently oblivious to it.
Often defer to out of date, wrong or incompetent but powerful figures. Another reason why science advances funeral by funeral. Medicine is particularly prey to this problem, due to the strict hierarchy in medical organisations.
Frequently optimize something other than truth. Publication, career advancement, money (as mentioned above), status, etc. Ask “What is the success metric?”.
On top of that a lot of self-proclaimed and even highly credentialed ‘experts’ don’t actually have much of a clue. Because:
Fields often have huge blind spots. E.g. I frequently see studies of the influence of childhood poverty or education or SES etc on people’s lives, in which the model explicitly assumes that there is no influence from parent to child via genes. Knowledge of statistics and of mathematics, key tools for understanding pandemics, are particularly weak in many fields. In my country it is typical of doctors to have mathematics only up to year 11.
People are experts in a far more narrow domain than they realize. My own country has a Chief Medical Officer, who seems to have little grasp of the management of epidemics. Long ago he was a medical specialist in a largely irrelevant field, for several decades a bureaucrat/political player. Dunning Kruger Syndrome.
Training often induces in people a hefty dose of arrogance—medical training being a particularly unfortunate example; law is another—and this arrogance is transferred to areas beyond the person’s sphere of competence.
Fields of study are often set up with safeguards and barriers which may or may not be well intentioned, but which prevent outsiders with good ideas from having any influence. In endocrinology, a field that impacts me personally, the practitioners in my country appear to have lost large swathes of knowledge and nothing can be done about it (e.g. of how to understand complex systems, so that endocrinological problems are typically assessed in terms of “is this individual blood level ‘normal’” rather than looking at the system as a whole).
Ideas, beliefs and practices that were formed based on little or no evidence become entrenched and remain in place, while anyone trying to overturn them is held to extremely high standards of rigor. Have a look at the evidence behind the original recommendations to avoid saturated fats, and to eat “healthy” trans fat laden margarines for example.
Important **None of this is to say that an amateur with google and ten minutes to spare can do better**. be cautious. It is very hard to do better than flawed experts.
Personally I have worked out, over time, some heuristics which have proven useful to sort out actual experts. Some things that mark out an actual expert:
1. They can make surprisingly accurate predictions. Better than most people, and better than simple techniques like linear extrapolation.
2. They can fix things that are broken. Whether broken machines, or dysfunctional social systems, or sick people.
3. They can explain things in a way that is as simple as possible, illuminating, and gives one clues as to how things might be better.
Not only that, but they have evidence for this. An example of the opposite: After thirty-five years of Freudian psychoanalysis, someone thought to do a study of whether they actually helped people get better more than doing nothing. No, they did not.
Things that do not mark out an expert:
1. Status among peers. The peers may be equally clueless or useless.
2. Great confidence. This is more a sign of arrogance than of competence. In “A Mind for Numbers” it is pointed out that claims of skill or competence or knowledge not accompanied by proof are actually far worse than acknowledged incompetence.
3. Ornate certificates on the wall.
4. Having attended high status institutions.
5. Having been successful, after taking huge risks. They may be a lucky idiot—look closely.
6. A few lucky breaks.
In the current context, I am willing to listen to experts who have a proven track record, who have relevant experience, and who have the skills needed to do the job. Even then I look hard for biases.
I welcome any additions/corrections/clarifications to all this.
I have been stewing about this question in general for a while. When I look back at my long (so far) life, I think of the many times I have been misled by so-called experts.
From which I learned that experts, even real ones:
Are subject to massive cognitive biases, without realizing it. One common one is the filtering of data based on prior beliefs, not updating when new evidence comes along. Science advances funeral by funeral.
Are often influenced by mercenary motives, and are frequently oblivious to it.
Often defer to out of date, wrong or incompetent but powerful figures. Another reason why science advances funeral by funeral. Medicine is particularly prey to this problem, due to the strict hierarchy in medical organisations.
Frequently optimize something other than truth. Publication, career advancement, money (as mentioned above), status, etc. Ask “What is the success metric?”.
On top of that a lot of self-proclaimed and even highly credentialed ‘experts’ don’t actually have much of a clue. Because:
Fields often have huge blind spots. E.g. I frequently see studies of the influence of childhood poverty or education or SES etc on people’s lives, in which the model explicitly assumes that there is no influence from parent to child via genes. Knowledge of statistics and of mathematics, key tools for understanding pandemics, are particularly weak in many fields. In my country it is typical of doctors to have mathematics only up to year 11.
People are experts in a far more narrow domain than they realize. My own country has a Chief Medical Officer, who seems to have little grasp of the management of epidemics. Long ago he was a medical specialist in a largely irrelevant field, for several decades a bureaucrat/political player. Dunning Kruger Syndrome.
Training often induces in people a hefty dose of arrogance—medical training being a particularly unfortunate example; law is another—and this arrogance is transferred to areas beyond the person’s sphere of competence.
Fields of study are often set up with safeguards and barriers which may or may not be well intentioned, but which prevent outsiders with good ideas from having any influence. In endocrinology, a field that impacts me personally, the practitioners in my country appear to have lost large swathes of knowledge and nothing can be done about it (e.g. of how to understand complex systems, so that endocrinological problems are typically assessed in terms of “is this individual blood level ‘normal’” rather than looking at the system as a whole).
Ideas, beliefs and practices that were formed based on little or no evidence become entrenched and remain in place, while anyone trying to overturn them is held to extremely high standards of rigor. Have a look at the evidence behind the original recommendations to avoid saturated fats, and to eat “healthy” trans fat laden margarines for example.
Important **None of this is to say that an amateur with google and ten minutes to spare can do better**. be cautious. It is very hard to do better than flawed experts.
Personally I have worked out, over time, some heuristics which have proven useful to sort out actual experts. Some things that mark out an actual expert:
1. They can make surprisingly accurate predictions. Better than most people, and better than simple techniques like linear extrapolation.
2. They can fix things that are broken. Whether broken machines, or dysfunctional social systems, or sick people.
3. They can explain things in a way that is as simple as possible, illuminating, and gives one clues as to how things might be better.
Not only that, but they have evidence for this. An example of the opposite: After thirty-five years of Freudian psychoanalysis, someone thought to do a study of whether they actually helped people get better more than doing nothing. No, they did not.
Things that do not mark out an expert:
1. Status among peers. The peers may be equally clueless or useless.
2. Great confidence. This is more a sign of arrogance than of competence. In “A Mind for Numbers” it is pointed out that claims of skill or competence or knowledge not accompanied by proof are actually far worse than acknowledged incompetence.
3. Ornate certificates on the wall.
4. Having attended high status institutions.
5. Having been successful, after taking huge risks. They may be a lucky idiot—look closely.
6. A few lucky breaks.
In the current context, I am willing to listen to experts who have a proven track record, who have relevant experience, and who have the skills needed to do the job. Even then I look hard for biases.
I welcome any additions/corrections/clarifications to all this.