From pandemic missteps to economic forecasts gone wrong, the public’s trust in experts is crumbling. But the term ‘expert’ itself may lead to unearned trust.
Thanks. I have thought about this subject a lot, so your article, though short in length, resonated. I happen to be a professional engineer and I have been studying energy (and related policy) for 40 years, and what you have flagged is a serious issue - lots and lots of people are considered to be 'energy experts' and many individuals consider themselves to be 'energy experts', but what that means varies widely. What the media and pundit class consider to be 'energy experts' is very different from the kinds of people who design, build and operate energy systems in the real world.
This problem runs across all sectors. I agree with you that the REAL expertise resides with practitioners.
It seems me that these definitions could be honed further. For instance, during my 25-year career in Internet technology, I collaborated with many people who had expertise in, say, data encryption or software release processes. They weren't interacting with the physical world, but they were definitely practitioners whose output was a solved problem, not some kind of theory, recommendation, or report. Indeed, a lot of what I did was write protocol specifications (see https://stpeter.im/tech/ for examples), which programmers used to write conformant code that solved a problem - I was still acting as an expert, but not exactly as a practitioner in some senses of the word...
Yes, the distinctions are clear but the categories bleed into each other in practice. Doctors are practitioners, but rely heavily on researchers, modelers, and data analysts. As their jobs often involve trying to convince people to make changes or accept treatments they fall into the activist trap as well. At least, half of my doctors do, and the doctors I worked with at the hospital for 40+ years often did as well. They have to make the distinction, the journalists, need to make the distinction, the researchers/analysts need to make the distinction, and we need to make the distinction at each point, but there is usually a continuum of confidence that varies even within specialties.
The reality is, that seldom happens. We look for schema, shortcuts, oversimplifications in virtually every human endeavor.
Even here, you are advocating that we look at things in a particular way that you believe is more helpful. And I agree with your take quite strongly. But it does of necessity shade into advocacy. I will be linking back to this article on my own site. I was referred by this week's Rob Henderson links.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing as I was writing it but wanted to keep it simple. Other categories for groups could be theorists (philosophers), technocrats (central bankers), technologists (programmers), etc. And the reasons for getting it wrong could be expanded as well, e.g., groupthink.
Completely agree that ideology and activism has had an outsize influence in recent years. The comments bring out forms of bias that are not necessarily ideological, but have a similar distorting effect. What one could call "worst case scenario bias" has clearly manifested itself in recent frontline issues. "Lets make it clear and simple so ordinary folk will know what to do" bias is another one, along with "must draw eye-popping conclusions from ambiguous data to be noted in the marketplace" bias. Science can be self-policing, though, but with ideology it is society as a whole that has to be able to self regulate. Harder.
Obviously, the biggest confusion arises when analysts and activists are mixed together. This is particularly common in the political arena, where it provides a stage for actors and spectators alike.
I would argue that credentialism is how we go to the point that we’re at now. Once the institutions that determined “who is smart” [Ivy league colleges] swayed to the far left, it was over.
No more people from the [political] right side were allowed to reach prestigious levels.
Studies were funded to make sure that everyone believed that right leaning ideology was “dumb” and “knuckle dragging.”
That’s why it always had to start with control of the educational system.
Yuri Bezmenov covered this quite extensively.
*****
"Ideological subversion is the legitimate process over and over… you can see it with your own eyes. All you have to do, all the Americans have to do, is to unplug the bananas from their ears, open up their eyes and they can see. (…) What it basically means is, to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that, despite their abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their communities, their country. It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and which is divided into 4 basic stages. The first one being demoralization. *It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum of years which is required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of the enemy, that is Marxism, Leninism ideology.* It’s pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or contra-balanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism. The result you can see. Most people who graduated in the sixties, drop-outs and half-baked intellectuals are now occupying position of power: In the government, civil service, business, mass media, educational systems. You are stuck with them, you cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated, they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white, and black is black, you still cannot change the perception and their logical behavior. In other words: The process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. *To get rid of these people, you will have to take another 15-20 years to educate a new generation of patriotic minded and common-sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interest of the United States’ society."*
Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov aka Tomas Schuman, Soviet journalist, KGB informant, Dissident, interviewed by G. Edward Griffin, 1984
*****
Education was 100% critical in this process. Once you can define “intelligent” you can convince people that it’s “intelligent” to do anything. And that those who are speaking common sense, are “ignorant.”
Reality has now been reshaped.
However, there are a lot of people who have resisted this programming, and they’re the ones that are reading articles like this one.
We’re not quite screwed over yet.
Many people disagree with Trump’s methods, they say they are “too brash,” “too much,” “Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing.” But they are wrong. The only way that people snap out of the trance, is to see that their “reality” is false. And by pulling things in 10 different directions at the same time, a picture emerges. It becomes clear that nothing we were told is correct. Tariffs would destroy the world’s economy (sure if you leave them unrealistically high, and nobody comes to the table to negotiate — but that’s not a realistic position — it never was). Nobody discussed how long the process might take! I thought these people were “smart?” These are a few simple things that people are starting to notice.
Things have to change, either now, or later, but to continue on the same path we were on would not be a good thing.
Trying to persuade vs trying to control (violence).
An airline pilot is using his expertise to persuade me to fly his airline, which I can freely choose whether or not I want to do.
A public health official in trying to force me to remain at home, close my school, be fired if I don't get a vaccine, etc.
Since they are using control (violence) the bar for evidence is really really high. Much higher than it is for persuasion.
Using control (violence) is usually a sign of being an activist rather than an analyst, but in both cases the evidence involved usually doesn't reach the level of certainty necessary to justify control.
Moreover, models don't have values. A model might (highly imperfectly) determine if school closures might save lives, but it doesn't tell us if it's WORTH closing schools to save lives. "Trust the experts" people don't just want us to trust their models, but accept their values.
The persuade vs. control is an excellent point. As you say, the bar has to be much higher if you have the power to control.
I think the consequences for being wrong should be much higher as well if it's determined that the failure is ideological. You don't want them to be so onerous that it makes one do the wrong thing (e.g., Admiral Byng's court martial and execution for "failing to do his utmost", which prompted Voltaire to quip about England "In this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, to encourage the others") but at a minimum receive official reprimands and perhaps get fired.
I've had people ask when I will move on from anger over COVID.
My answer is when the people who screwed it up have been punished and structural changes have been put in place to stop it from happening again. The same people are running our schools and teachers unions with even bigger budgets then before despite fewer kids enrolled. That's hardly an endorsement that the system has learned its lesson.
Personally I moved to Florida where not only did they get it more right, but they passed universal school vouchers so that if they try to shut them down again (or screw up anything else) you can just send your kids somewhere else.
while tongue in cheek the comment is accurate. The economists inveighing against Milei cannot imagine an economic system without their guidance and are completely ignorant of the fact that their "guidance" is what is causing a great deal o the poor outcomes.
You've forgotten to include those who are expert in systems that aren't the way they are for good reason and could easily be a different way, eg most government and businesses and the higher levels of education.
I think you should revisit your taxonomy doing factor analysis on why they're primary and distinctive categories.
Yes, very good. You can add that 'practitioners', a good word, are often also regulated professionals, and the rest are not.
I hadn't thought of that perspective. Good addition!
Thanks. I have thought about this subject a lot, so your article, though short in length, resonated. I happen to be a professional engineer and I have been studying energy (and related policy) for 40 years, and what you have flagged is a serious issue - lots and lots of people are considered to be 'energy experts' and many individuals consider themselves to be 'energy experts', but what that means varies widely. What the media and pundit class consider to be 'energy experts' is very different from the kinds of people who design, build and operate energy systems in the real world.
This problem runs across all sectors. I agree with you that the REAL expertise resides with practitioners.
Thanks for this helpful analysis. (h/t Arnold Kling at https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/economists-and-dentists btw)
thanks for sharing that...it was a great read!
It seems me that these definitions could be honed further. For instance, during my 25-year career in Internet technology, I collaborated with many people who had expertise in, say, data encryption or software release processes. They weren't interacting with the physical world, but they were definitely practitioners whose output was a solved problem, not some kind of theory, recommendation, or report. Indeed, a lot of what I did was write protocol specifications (see https://stpeter.im/tech/ for examples), which programmers used to write conformant code that solved a problem - I was still acting as an expert, but not exactly as a practitioner in some senses of the word...
Yes, the distinctions are clear but the categories bleed into each other in practice. Doctors are practitioners, but rely heavily on researchers, modelers, and data analysts. As their jobs often involve trying to convince people to make changes or accept treatments they fall into the activist trap as well. At least, half of my doctors do, and the doctors I worked with at the hospital for 40+ years often did as well. They have to make the distinction, the journalists, need to make the distinction, the researchers/analysts need to make the distinction, and we need to make the distinction at each point, but there is usually a continuum of confidence that varies even within specialties.
The reality is, that seldom happens. We look for schema, shortcuts, oversimplifications in virtually every human endeavor.
Even here, you are advocating that we look at things in a particular way that you believe is more helpful. And I agree with your take quite strongly. But it does of necessity shade into advocacy. I will be linking back to this article on my own site. I was referred by this week's Rob Henderson links.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing as I was writing it but wanted to keep it simple. Other categories for groups could be theorists (philosophers), technocrats (central bankers), technologists (programmers), etc. And the reasons for getting it wrong could be expanded as well, e.g., groupthink.
Will have to think more about it.
Practitioners usually have skin in the game—or at least aren't shielded from the fallout when things go wrong.
Completely agree that ideology and activism has had an outsize influence in recent years. The comments bring out forms of bias that are not necessarily ideological, but have a similar distorting effect. What one could call "worst case scenario bias" has clearly manifested itself in recent frontline issues. "Lets make it clear and simple so ordinary folk will know what to do" bias is another one, along with "must draw eye-popping conclusions from ambiguous data to be noted in the marketplace" bias. Science can be self-policing, though, but with ideology it is society as a whole that has to be able to self regulate. Harder.
Really good!
Obviously, the biggest confusion arises when analysts and activists are mixed together. This is particularly common in the political arena, where it provides a stage for actors and spectators alike.
I would argue that credentialism is how we go to the point that we’re at now. Once the institutions that determined “who is smart” [Ivy league colleges] swayed to the far left, it was over.
No more people from the [political] right side were allowed to reach prestigious levels.
Studies were funded to make sure that everyone believed that right leaning ideology was “dumb” and “knuckle dragging.”
That’s why it always had to start with control of the educational system.
Yuri Bezmenov covered this quite extensively.
*****
"Ideological subversion is the legitimate process over and over… you can see it with your own eyes. All you have to do, all the Americans have to do, is to unplug the bananas from their ears, open up their eyes and they can see. (…) What it basically means is, to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that, despite their abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their communities, their country. It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and which is divided into 4 basic stages. The first one being demoralization. *It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum of years which is required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of the enemy, that is Marxism, Leninism ideology.* It’s pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or contra-balanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism. The result you can see. Most people who graduated in the sixties, drop-outs and half-baked intellectuals are now occupying position of power: In the government, civil service, business, mass media, educational systems. You are stuck with them, you cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated, they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white, and black is black, you still cannot change the perception and their logical behavior. In other words: The process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. *To get rid of these people, you will have to take another 15-20 years to educate a new generation of patriotic minded and common-sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interest of the United States’ society."*
Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov aka Tomas Schuman, Soviet journalist, KGB informant, Dissident, interviewed by G. Edward Griffin, 1984
*****
Education was 100% critical in this process. Once you can define “intelligent” you can convince people that it’s “intelligent” to do anything. And that those who are speaking common sense, are “ignorant.”
Reality has now been reshaped.
However, there are a lot of people who have resisted this programming, and they’re the ones that are reading articles like this one.
We’re not quite screwed over yet.
Many people disagree with Trump’s methods, they say they are “too brash,” “too much,” “Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing.” But they are wrong. The only way that people snap out of the trance, is to see that their “reality” is false. And by pulling things in 10 different directions at the same time, a picture emerges. It becomes clear that nothing we were told is correct. Tariffs would destroy the world’s economy (sure if you leave them unrealistically high, and nobody comes to the table to negotiate — but that’s not a realistic position — it never was). Nobody discussed how long the process might take! I thought these people were “smart?” These are a few simple things that people are starting to notice.
Things have to change, either now, or later, but to continue on the same path we were on would not be a good thing.
Better to rip the band-aid off now.
Thanks, Mark, for another compelling story.
Mark Burgess
Trying to persuade vs trying to control (violence).
An airline pilot is using his expertise to persuade me to fly his airline, which I can freely choose whether or not I want to do.
A public health official in trying to force me to remain at home, close my school, be fired if I don't get a vaccine, etc.
Since they are using control (violence) the bar for evidence is really really high. Much higher than it is for persuasion.
Using control (violence) is usually a sign of being an activist rather than an analyst, but in both cases the evidence involved usually doesn't reach the level of certainty necessary to justify control.
Moreover, models don't have values. A model might (highly imperfectly) determine if school closures might save lives, but it doesn't tell us if it's WORTH closing schools to save lives. "Trust the experts" people don't just want us to trust their models, but accept their values.
The persuade vs. control is an excellent point. As you say, the bar has to be much higher if you have the power to control.
I think the consequences for being wrong should be much higher as well if it's determined that the failure is ideological. You don't want them to be so onerous that it makes one do the wrong thing (e.g., Admiral Byng's court martial and execution for "failing to do his utmost", which prompted Voltaire to quip about England "In this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, to encourage the others") but at a minimum receive official reprimands and perhaps get fired.
I've had people ask when I will move on from anger over COVID.
My answer is when the people who screwed it up have been punished and structural changes have been put in place to stop it from happening again. The same people are running our schools and teachers unions with even bigger budgets then before despite fewer kids enrolled. That's hardly an endorsement that the system has learned its lesson.
Personally I moved to Florida where not only did they get it more right, but they passed universal school vouchers so that if they try to shut them down again (or screw up anything else) you can just send your kids somewhere else.
Yes. Without consequences there's no reason to believe any lessons have been learned.
The economists describing Milei policies as dangerous were correct. These policies are very dangerous to these economists.
Ha! That's great!
while tongue in cheek the comment is accurate. The economists inveighing against Milei cannot imagine an economic system without their guidance and are completely ignorant of the fact that their "guidance" is what is causing a great deal o the poor outcomes.
You've forgotten to include those who are expert in systems that aren't the way they are for good reason and could easily be a different way, eg most government and businesses and the higher levels of education.
I think you should revisit your taxonomy doing factor analysis on why they're primary and distinctive categories.
The first nine paragraphs are pure fluff. Shame.