What’s local may change as you move around. Suppose you alternate between two places, each with its local expert on topic X, and the local experts disagree. Should you agree with expert A in place P and with expert B in place Q? Should you pick one of them and consistently agree with them? (That seems like it has at least some of the same failure modes as picking a remote expert.)
Perhaps the sort of “trust” called for in the presence of a local expert is rather slight: when discussing something with a local expert, you should usually assume for the sake of argument that they are right in those matters on which they are expert, while recognizing that going further than that is a task best undertaken by those with some expertise of their own. (Though if you’re confident, having talked to available local experts, that there’s a genuine expert consensus, it’s probably fair enough to go along with that—until, perhaps, you encounter another local expert who sees things differently...)
Should you agree with expert A in place P and with expert B in place Q?
I am willing to bite the bullet that, to a first approximation, you should agree with whichever expert you spoke to last. That is, as long as you are attempting to represent each expert to the other. If the experts know of each other’s views and disagree, then you probably should trust whichever seems “higher level”.
But if you’re representing the experts to each other, the same kind of miscommunication questions come into play. If you do have this continual back-and-forth, then you should decrease your confidence that what you understand to be each expert’s position is correct (not just because of misunderstanding, but because you increase your confidence in the experts being wrong).
Perhaps the sort of “trust” called for in the presence of a local expert is rather slight
Yes, you’re right. Your confidence should be quite low, even though I think you should adjust to track their view. I think I might need to update the post with something about this
What’s local may change as you move around. Suppose you alternate between two places, each with its local expert on topic X, and the local experts disagree. Should you agree with expert A in place P and with expert B in place Q? Should you pick one of them and consistently agree with them? (That seems like it has at least some of the same failure modes as picking a remote expert.)
Perhaps the sort of “trust” called for in the presence of a local expert is rather slight: when discussing something with a local expert, you should usually assume for the sake of argument that they are right in those matters on which they are expert, while recognizing that going further than that is a task best undertaken by those with some expertise of their own. (Though if you’re confident, having talked to available local experts, that there’s a genuine expert consensus, it’s probably fair enough to go along with that—until, perhaps, you encounter another local expert who sees things differently...)
I am willing to bite the bullet that, to a first approximation, you should agree with whichever expert you spoke to last. That is, as long as you are attempting to represent each expert to the other. If the experts know of each other’s views and disagree, then you probably should trust whichever seems “higher level”.
But if you’re representing the experts to each other, the same kind of miscommunication questions come into play. If you do have this continual back-and-forth, then you should decrease your confidence that what you understand to be each expert’s position is correct (not just because of misunderstanding, but because you increase your confidence in the experts being wrong).
Yes, you’re right. Your confidence should be quite low, even though I think you should adjust to track their view. I think I might need to update the post with something about this