The Death of Expertise

[sharon45]

I would like to thank untermensche and Sharon45 for providing such clear examples of people "contributing" to a debate under the belief that they have sufficient subject knowledge to do so, while being so clearly oblivious to the fact that they don't know what they are on about.

Now, having provided your asinine contributions and given everyone a good laugh at your apparent obliviousness, could you please stop derailing my thread?

Thanks.

It's also a pretty good example of the difference between an error and a slip. An expert can still make a slip in their field of expertise, but they are much more unlikely to make an error. That's one reason we should make the distinction between expertise conveyed quickly (say Twitter, a blog, or a discussion board) and expertise conveyed carefully (say a peer-reviewed paper, a class, or a book).

Yet you are merely granting expertise as though it is a fact. Exactly whose idea of expertise?

 

[untermensche]

It's his own self-proclaimed expertise.

Very convincing.

 

[bilby]

I would like to thank untermensche and Sharon45 for providing such clear examples of people "contributing" to a debate under the belief that they have sufficient subject knowledge to do so, while being so clearly oblivious to the fact that they don't know what they are on about.

Now, having provided your asinine contributions and given everyone a good laugh at your apparent obliviousness, could you please stop derailing my thread?

Thanks.

Just because you don't get the example, it does not make it a derail. You act like you are close to the only one who has noticed a steep decline in thought over the decades. Practically every time I try to bring up things to get people to think outside of their obvious comfort zones is met with ridicule. That is just more evidence of intellectual stagnation and disease.

That's one possibility; But you should also consider that ridicule may be due to gross errors on your part of which you are unaware - You might actually be ridiculous. That's certainly another plausible cause for ridicule, and it's one that we should always consider. If you think that everyone is out of step except you, then you are highly likely to be wrong.

Sure, they laughed at Galileo; But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

 

[untermensche]

Just because you don't get the example, it does not make it a derail. You act like you are close to the only one who has noticed a steep decline in thought over the decades. Practically every time I try to bring up things to get people to think outside of their obvious comfort zones is met with ridicule. That is just more evidence of intellectual stagnation and disease.

That's one possibility; But you should also consider that ridicule may be due to gross errors on your part of which you are unaware - You might actually be ridiculous. That's certainly another plausible cause for ridicule, and it's one that we should always consider. If you think that everyone is out of step except you, then you are highly likely to be wrong.

Sure, they laughed at Galileo; But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

On provable matters sure.

If you can do something then sure.

If you claim to have special knowledge it's nonsense.

 

[beero1000]

Irony.

I am a pharmacist.

That is my area of expertise.

I at least have one.

Congratulations?

It's also a pretty good example of the difference between an error and a slip. An expert can still make a slip in their field of expertise, but they are much more unlikely to make an error. That's one reason we should make the distinction between expertise conveyed quickly (say Twitter, a blog, or a discussion board) and expertise conveyed carefully (say a peer-reviewed paper, a class, or a book).

Yet you are merely granting expertise as though it is a fact. Exactly whose idea of expertise?

I didn't say anything about classifying who is an expert or not, just that IF someone is an expert THEN they are less likely to make fundamental errors in their area of expertise.

 

[beero1000]

And some people who look like non-experts because they don't have the title, the language etc. are nonetheless the real experts because they've developed their own, in-house, expertise, and they got better at it than the official experts.

I fit more in this range, except I am nowhere near an expert on anything, but I can still beat many of the so-called experts at their own game on numerous occasions.

This sounds dangerously close to what OP's article is about. Care to give examples of you showing up an expert in their field of expertise?

 

[untermensche]

I am a pharmacist.

That is my area of expertise.

I at least have one.

Congratulations?

Who gives a shit what you think about things like that?

What is your expertise?

Juvenile wisecracks?

I'd call you a modern day theologian with your imaginary friends. Not an expert on anything real.

 

[rousseau]

I recall seeing a a graph, maybe even posted by Bilby somewhere, where when you're in the DK club you have high certainty, and as you gain knowledge you actually have more uncertainty until the uncertainty dissipates and you actually do have expertise in something.

This has been true for me in many respects. I was a lot more cock-sure in my early twenties than I am now. These days I'm usually quick to recognise what I don't know and when I'm uncertain and act appropriately. Useful skill to have.

The only thing I'm starting to truly move toward expertise in is software development, which I've been doing for six years now. History might be a close second, but that's only relative to the general population.

Other than those two things I consider myself more of a generalist, as Bilby mentions. I like to have a strong understanding of many different things, rather than an extensive understanding of one thing. This allows me to bring novel ideas to different fields, but there are almost always people who out-pace me everywhere I go.

 

[untermensche]

The only thing I'm starting to truly move toward expertise in is software development, which I've been doing for six years now.

This is expertise in doing something, not just knowing something.

You can prove your expertise. Who can question it?

If somebody says: "This is so because I am the expert."

I merely say: "Prove it is so."

 

[sharon45]

Just because you don't get the example, it does not make it a derail. You act like you are close to the only one who has noticed a steep decline in thought over the decades. Practically every time I try to bring up things to get people to think outside of their obvious comfort zones is met with ridicule. That is just more evidence of intellectual stagnation and disease.

That's one possibility; But you should also consider that ridicule may be due to gross errors on your part of which you are unaware

Of course, and that is why I dare to risk embarrassment talking about them here.

You might actually be ridiculous.

Obviously.

That's certainly another plausible cause for ridicule, and it's one that we should always consider. If you think that everyone is out of step except you, then you are highly likely to be wrong.

I purposely want to talk about things that are unpopular or against ideas considered settled logic. And Twitter is a cesspool of stupid old quotes and thoughts from many highly respected people that I find in error.

Sure, they laughed at Galileo; But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Yes, but I am not a scientist, although I do like humor, because it helps with my naturally creative problem solving skills.

 

[sharon45]

I am a pharmacist.

That is my area of expertise.

I at least have one.

Congratulations?

It's also a pretty good example of the difference between an error and a slip. An expert can still make a slip in their field of expertise, but they are much more unlikely to make an error. That's one reason we should make the distinction between expertise conveyed quickly (say Twitter, a blog, or a discussion board) and expertise conveyed carefully (say a peer-reviewed paper, a class, or a book).

Yet you are merely granting expertise as though it is a fact. Exactly whose idea of expertise?

I didn't say anything about classifying who is an expert or not, just that IF someone is an expert THEN they are less likely to make fundamental errors in their area of expertise.

Yes, but just being an expert is still hardly an automatic pass, since each issue brought up has to be shown as correct.

 

[bigfield]

I fear we are witnessing the “death of expertise”: a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any division between professionals and laymen, students and teachers, knowers and wonderers – in other words, between those of any achievement in an area and those with none at all. By this, I do not mean the death of actual expertise, the knowledge of specific things that sets some people apart from others in various areas. There will always be doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other specialists in various fields. Rather, what I fear has died is any acknowledgement of expertise as anything that should alter our thoughts or change the way we live.

The average person doesn't even get that far. Most people don't listen to opinions based on the expertise of the speaker, but choose their sources based on charisma, platform and social proof. They base their opinions on what they hear via mass media, which in turn is dominated by columnists, DJs and panelists offering their half-baked thoughts on every subject under the sun. People treat these sources as credible simply because they are on; anyone who gets a half page and their portrait in the paper or a two-hour segment in prime-time must be worth listening to, right? When people do decide to seek out more in-depth knowledge on a subject, they frequently choose celebrities ahead of experts. Why buy a nutrition program from a PhD. nutritionist when one can buy a book written by an actress, a reality TV clown, or a guy who has a cute snapchat recipe gimmick? Some people just seem to treat social proof as a valid substitute for critical thinking, as if popular and likeable people are automatically trustworthy.

This is how corrupt politicians with dangerously bad ideas are able to form government, failing markets are able to escape scrutiny, and charlatans write bestsellers. People have no idea why or how they're getting fucked because they can't tell shit from shoe polish, a terrible disability in a world where Sturgeon's law applies to every medium.

 

[bigfield]

Yes, but just being an expert is still hardly an automatic pass, since each issue brought up has to be shown as correct.

By "Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden" laymen, no doubt.

 

[bilby]

I fear we are witnessing the “death of expertise”: a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any division between professionals and laymen, students and teachers, knowers and wonderers – in other words, between those of any achievement in an area and those with none at all. By this, I do not mean the death of actual expertise, the knowledge of specific things that sets some people apart from others in various areas. There will always be doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other specialists in various fields. Rather, what I fear has died is any acknowledgement of expertise as anything that should alter our thoughts or change the way we live.

The average person doesn't even get that far. Most people don't listen to opinions based on the expertise of the speaker, but choose their sources based on charisma, platform and social proof. They base their opinions on what they hear via mass media, which in turn is dominated by columnists, DJs and panelists offering their half-baked thoughts on every subject under the sun. People treat these sources as credible simply because they are on; anyone who gets a half page and their portrait in the paper or a two-hour segment in prime-time must be worth listening to, right? When people do decide to seek out more in-depth knowledge on a subject, they frequently choose celebrities ahead of experts. Why buy a nutrition program from a PhD. nutritionist when one can buy a book written by an actress, a reality TV clown, or a guy who has a cute snapchat recipe gimmick? Some people just seem to treat social proof as a valid substitute for critical thinking, as if popular and likeable people are automatically trustworthy.

This is how corrupt politicians with dangerously bad ideas are able to form government, failing markets are able to escape scrutiny, and charlatans write bestsellers. People have no idea why or how they're getting fucked because they can't tell shit from shoe polish, a terrible disability in a world where Sturgeon's law applies to every medium.

^All of that.

There are a number of very dangerous heuristics that are built-in to human civilization, because they were good enough in the past, but which may be inadequate or downright dangerous in a modern technological society.

These include, but are not limited to, giving credibility to ideas based on the popularity and fame of the person who is promoting or proposing them; and the assumption that if you hear about something (particularly if it is confronting and extraordinary), it must be highly relevant to your life - which were both survival traits in small communities dominated by the physically strong, and at threat from large numbers of real local hazards; but are not effective modes of thought in a globalized society dominated by the wealthy and politically powerful, and with few serious threats to most people.

In the twenty-first century, the most serious threats are mundane, and apt to be ignored - while trivial but novel threats are taken far more seriously than they deserve.

 

[untermensche]

All this is great.

Just as long as we do not equate expertise with popular opinion.

 

[bilby]

All this is great.

Just as long as we do not equate expertise with popular opinion.

That you think 'we' might do that is a strong indication that you are not aware of what expertise even is, and/or don't understand the meaning of the word as detailed by the link in the OP, which you have clearly either not read, or not understood. As a result you are unqualified to have an opinion on the matter. Which is truly ironic.

 

[untermensche]

Let me guess?

This whole stupid thread is you claiming you have some special expertise?

You have nothing.

 

[beero1000]

 

[untermensche]

I hope you are not holding your breath.

 

[bilby]

Let me guess?

This whole stupid thread is you claiming you have some special expertise?

You have nothing.

Perhaps you should try reading the posts I have made so far, rather than guessing.

You could pay particular attention to:

Myself, I am not an expert at all; I am a generalist and depend very much upon experts to provide the deep foundations on which my broad understandings are based.

Perhaps I could claim to be an expert in identifying genuine expertise; but then again, how could I be confident in that ability? If I were sufficiently incompetent, I could falsely believe myself an expert, and never realise my error.

and to:

I would like to thank untermensche and Sharon45 for providing such clear examples of people "contributing" to a debate under the belief that they have sufficient subject knowledge to do so, while being so clearly oblivious to the fact that they don't know what they are on about.

Now, having provided your asinine contributions and given everyone a good laugh at your apparent obliviousness, could you please stop derailing my thread?

Thanks.