The existence of experts has become a hot-button topic. Trust in an expert is now a reflection of confirmation bias. Expertise is relative and dynamic. As knowledge increases, relative knowledge shifts. Newton could once predict every movement. Knowledge increasing is a given. Better instruments will always yield more detail and precision.
There's another dimension to this: the *accessibility* of knowledge.
Way back in history, there were people who could not read. So, knowledge was limited to the privileged few who were literate. Those who were literate were clearly experts because they knew much more than the masses of people who couldn't. That's where your point about the relative nature of expertise comes in. Because it's not necessarily that those experts knew a lot in general. But they knew a lot more than the people around them who couldn't read.
That's why dictators limit access to knowledge. Because they want to be the ultimate source of knowledge (or "expert") within their dictatorship.
Literacy, the printing press, the internet... each of these allowed knowledge to increase among the masses in much of the world. The lower classes gained access to knowledge they didn't have. So, the gap between those who had knowledge and those who didn't narrowed.
If we couple this with the psychology of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," then it's easier to see why people who can look up Wikipedia, Google or ChatGPT think they know as much as an expert. That decreases the (perceived) value of experts.
In Dive 27 of my newsletter, I talked about how a tech influencer on Twitter who lived in Europe thought he knew more than I did about a law local to where I work, even though I was tested on it by the entity that created that law. I'm still befuddled by that.
Thanks to ease of access to knowledge, we're also seeing charlatans selling themselves as "experts" only to discover later that they're frauds. This also makes it harder to trust in any self-proclaimed experts *unless* they've demonstrated their knowledge. The fraudulent "experts" further erode trust in experts.
So, I would say the reason experts seem less trustworthy nowadays has less to do with the increase in the quantity of knowledge, and more to do with an increase in the *accessibility* of knowledge. Or the *distribution* of knowledge. But that doesn't mean knowledge can't become siloed once again (see the dictatorship example above).
I agree that the Dunning-Krueger Effect exists. But there is also prestige in being an expert so there's vested interest in defending the "title" of being an expert.
I would say that all experts should be willing to put their expertise to the test. Too many people rely on ethos rather than logos.
I think the default, subconscious assumption that most people have is that reality is static. Which leads to a a default, subconscious tendency to believe in credentialed authorities. But reality is dynamic - which means that credentials and ethos must be constantly reevaluated.
Totally! I agree. I'll add that whatever evaluation methods are used should put the "expert's" skin in the game.
There are too many exams that can be gamed and certifications forged too easily. Because expertise is also a *perception* thing.
We are more likely to defer to an expert when we *feel* we don't have access to knowledge we *feel* someone else has. Because expertise depends on feelings and perceptions, it can be manipulated. Internet marketing 101 for selling info products online is often about convincing others that you have access to knowledge others do not have access to even when they do.
Ethos can be faked.
Some people are more impressionable than others, which is why different people have different ideas on who is or is not an expert on a given topic. Regardless of the actual knowledge the expert has.
And while it's easy to say people *should* rely more on ethos than logos, the reality is that people *don't*. And I'm not convinced anyone is "immune" from fraud no matter how logical or rational a person thinks they are. Including me. On the other hand, we can devise evaluations more robust to fraud. Like those that incorporate skin in the game.
Skin in the game is key. I think this is why experts default more to ethos than logos. Because while you can refute logos, it's much harder to refute ethos and so they have less skin in the game.
It feels like the only skin in the game now is the threat of "cancellation" not a loss in reputation on evidence.
There's another dimension to this: the *accessibility* of knowledge.
Way back in history, there were people who could not read. So, knowledge was limited to the privileged few who were literate. Those who were literate were clearly experts because they knew much more than the masses of people who couldn't. That's where your point about the relative nature of expertise comes in. Because it's not necessarily that those experts knew a lot in general. But they knew a lot more than the people around them who couldn't read.
That's why dictators limit access to knowledge. Because they want to be the ultimate source of knowledge (or "expert") within their dictatorship.
Literacy, the printing press, the internet... each of these allowed knowledge to increase among the masses in much of the world. The lower classes gained access to knowledge they didn't have. So, the gap between those who had knowledge and those who didn't narrowed.
If we couple this with the psychology of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," then it's easier to see why people who can look up Wikipedia, Google or ChatGPT think they know as much as an expert. That decreases the (perceived) value of experts.
In Dive 27 of my newsletter, I talked about how a tech influencer on Twitter who lived in Europe thought he knew more than I did about a law local to where I work, even though I was tested on it by the entity that created that law. I'm still befuddled by that.
Thanks to ease of access to knowledge, we're also seeing charlatans selling themselves as "experts" only to discover later that they're frauds. This also makes it harder to trust in any self-proclaimed experts *unless* they've demonstrated their knowledge. The fraudulent "experts" further erode trust in experts.
So, I would say the reason experts seem less trustworthy nowadays has less to do with the increase in the quantity of knowledge, and more to do with an increase in the *accessibility* of knowledge. Or the *distribution* of knowledge. But that doesn't mean knowledge can't become siloed once again (see the dictatorship example above).
I agree that the Dunning-Krueger Effect exists. But there is also prestige in being an expert so there's vested interest in defending the "title" of being an expert.
I would say that all experts should be willing to put their expertise to the test. Too many people rely on ethos rather than logos.
I think the default, subconscious assumption that most people have is that reality is static. Which leads to a a default, subconscious tendency to believe in credentialed authorities. But reality is dynamic - which means that credentials and ethos must be constantly reevaluated.
Totally! I agree. I'll add that whatever evaluation methods are used should put the "expert's" skin in the game.
There are too many exams that can be gamed and certifications forged too easily. Because expertise is also a *perception* thing.
We are more likely to defer to an expert when we *feel* we don't have access to knowledge we *feel* someone else has. Because expertise depends on feelings and perceptions, it can be manipulated. Internet marketing 101 for selling info products online is often about convincing others that you have access to knowledge others do not have access to even when they do.
Ethos can be faked.
Some people are more impressionable than others, which is why different people have different ideas on who is or is not an expert on a given topic. Regardless of the actual knowledge the expert has.
And while it's easy to say people *should* rely more on ethos than logos, the reality is that people *don't*. And I'm not convinced anyone is "immune" from fraud no matter how logical or rational a person thinks they are. Including me. On the other hand, we can devise evaluations more robust to fraud. Like those that incorporate skin in the game.
Skin in the game is key. I think this is why experts default more to ethos than logos. Because while you can refute logos, it's much harder to refute ethos and so they have less skin in the game.
It feels like the only skin in the game now is the threat of "cancellation" not a loss in reputation on evidence.
I was just reminded that a lot of people see skin in the game as the upside, but probably more important is that it also means the downside.
"Someone remaining an expert for years is the exception, not the rule." Was this always the case, or a sign of our times?
I think it's true. There's a difference between expert in prestige and expert in reality which can be hard to determine.