Real experts know what they don’t know and we should value it | Aeon Essays - Deepstash

deepstash

Beta

deepstash

Beta

Deepstash brings you key ideas from the most inspiring articles like this one:

Read more efficiently

Save what inspires you

Remember anything

Real experts know what they don’t know and we should value it | Aeon Essays

https://aeon.co/essays/real-experts-know-what-they-dont-know-and-we-should-value-it

aeon.co

Real experts know what they don’t know and we should value it | Aeon Essays

7

Key Ideas

Save all ideas

Real and self-appointed experts

Real and self-appointed experts

The rise of social media means that experts willing to share their knowledge are more accessible to the public. One might think that communication between experts and decision-makers should be very good. But this is not the case.

Outlets are flooded with self-appointed 'experts' who lack real expertise. In every domain where decision-makers need experts or specialized knowledge, they will compete with those who don't have relevant knowledge.

109 SAVES


VIEW

How experts compete

Real experts are often confident in their claims, but in the private market, the opposite can be more common.

  • Self-appointed experts want airtime and overstate their conclusions.
  • Actual experts want to draw attention to their work. They may not have all the answers and may admit it.
  • Consultants want future business. They have to try to pretend they have complete certainty about uncertain things.

Mixing the information of the pundit, scholar, and consultant creates information noise that makes it difficult for decision-makers to know what to do.

115 SAVES


Three kinds of questions for scientific knowledge

When communicating scientific knowledge to policymakers and the public, there are three levels of questions:

  • Level-one questions: Anyone with even modest expertise or access to a search engine can answer these questions. For example, 'Will price controls cause shortages?'
  • Level-two questions: Only the most qualified experts, within existing paradigms of scholarly knowledge, have something to say. For example, 'Can we design algorithms to assign medical residents to programmes in an effective way?'
  • Level-three questions: Even the experts don't know the answers, such as what interest rates will be in two years.

110 SAVES


The wisdom required for the decision-makers

Knowing which questions fall into which category requires expertise. Politicians and executives might be experts in the area of decision-making, but they are seldom experts in the areas where they make decisions.

When there are decisions that require an expert perspective, the real experts might admit that they don't know, making the decision-maker vulnerable to uninformed experts who convince them that they have the answers.

99 SAVES


Experts and bad decisions

  • When experts and pundits don't acknowledge that they don't know, it can lead to bad decisions.
  • When uncertainty is admitted with a level-two problem, qualified experts' advice can get lost in the noise, or decision-makers might ask the wrong experts.
  • When the research frontier doesn't offer definitive answers or gives the wrong answers, it can result in bad policy.
  • A false confidence in understanding important questions will delay the discovery of real improvements.

102 SAVES


Admitting to uncertainty

True expertise means knowing the limits of one's knowledge.

Institutions can be designed to encourage real experts to admit uncertainty. The key lies in whether the question was answerable in the first place. Good experts should be willing to say they don't know because it is an unanswerable question. Once the competent experts are saying they don't know, incompetent experts may follow suit.

99 SAVES


How to improve expert communication

  • Ask different experts different questions. Rather than asking experts: "Will this drug work?', ask some of them, "Is there good evidence about whether the drug will work?" Qualified experts won't always know the answer to the first problem, but will know the answer to the last question.
  • Don't just broadcast the most extreme and confident views. The most confident might not be knowledgeable enough to realise they shouldn't be confident.
  • Listen to conversations between experts, as they might be more honest about their level of confidence in this context.
  • Qualified and knowledgeable experts may be driven to overstate their certainty. To overcome this, the decision-maker should ask better questions and be willing to listen to the less confident experts.

104 SAVES


SIMILAR ARTICLES & IDEAS:

Nostalgia

Nostalgia

It is understood as a longing for something long gone by, with a desire to relive the time, combined with a certain sadness while reminiscing about the particular life event.

...

Nostalgia and Feeling Homesick

Swiss physician Johannes Hofer referred to nostalgia as a kind of homesickness, a desire to return to the beautiful, simpler times.

The feelings of nostalgia were usually melancholia, anxiety, and rumination. It was made into a neurological illness, which was related to the geographical location of the person longing for home.

Evolution of The Meaning of Nostalgia

  • Nostalgia was considered by the early 20th century a psychiatric illness caused by some traumatic experience of childhood. It had three components, cognitive, affective and conative.
  • The cognitive part remembered old memories of the self, while the affective part was a sad emotion, finally moving towards a desire to return home(conative).
  • Nostalgia is neither a pathological state and nor is it necessarily beneficial. What we can think, remember or imagine, is not bound to be real or factual.

3 more ideas

Social Physics

Social Physics

Psychohistory is a fictional way to predict the future of humanity, using mathematical techniques.

Applying maths on human behaviour was initiated by Adolphe Quételet in the 19th centur...

Statistics

This is an invaluable tool for the fields of biology, medicine, economics, arts and humanities and the administrative services of the government.

Statistics provides useful tools, but those calculations and assumptions are based on certain constants that can lead to serious mistakes if taken too literally or applied to a large size. These calculations provide usable figures in a ‘quick and dirty’ way.

Adolphe Quételet's Estimations

Quételet, the mathematician turned astronomer who was performing social physics miracles as the central figure of Belgium science, got better in his game by learning probability theory and making use of his polymath brain. His work included estimations and calculations using the available data and his mathematical and statistical skills. Instead of counting everyone to know the population, Quételet used some reasonable estimates and then multiplied the number of births per year with the ratio of the total population to the annual births.

The new methodology was published in Quételet’s books in the 19th century, like Social Physics (1835) and its newer editions, and caught the imagination of the public. Concepts like the Average Man and the Bell Curve (a normal probability of distribution) simplified complex statistics and made it accessible to the world while being easily quotable and comparable.

Getting clear on thought

Getting clear on thought

The knowledge of our thoughts can be effortless and instantaneous. Other times, our thoughts are obscure and we must work hard to gain clarity.

Trying to understand the process of turning t...

Articulating our thoughts in the hard cases

To succeed in articulation, we need to chisel away at imprecise words, while guarding against words that would blur what we think.

We often discover what we think by reflecting on what we find ourselves saying. Immediately articulating our thoughts can also come out of us as buzzwords that might hardly reflect what we think at all. (eg, 'What a mess!') These words could come as a result of habit and obscure your thoughts even from yourself.

The paradox of articulation

The careful searching for words we need stands in tension with the ignorance we hope it will remedy. The clarity we want seems to consist in the knowledge that we're thinking some specific thought.

Jean-Paul Sartre touched on this paradox when he stated: "This is indeed what linguists and psychologists have perceived … they believed that they discovered a circle in the formulation of speaking, for in order to speak it is necessary to know one's thought. But how can we know this thought as a reality made explicit and fixed in concepts except precisely by speaking it?"