[Alpharius]

Came across this piece earlier today and thought it was a pretty interesting read. It goes to the core of what I see a lot of people complaining about here on the RVF. What's the point of having someone who's studied or worked in a field giving their opinion if someone with less education in the subject or less experience in it have an equally valued say?

Quote:

Democracy denotes a system of government, not an actual state of equality. Having equal rights does not mean having equal talents, equal abilities, or equal knowledge. It means, instead, that we enjoy equal rights versus the government, and in relation to each other.

It assuredly does not mean that “everyone’s opinion about anything is as good as anyone else’s,” because no one really lives that way. Imagine taking that attitude with your mechanic. (I would say “imagine taking that attitude with your doctor,” except people really do take that attitude with their doctors now.) Imagine you hear a rumble in your car, you go to the garage, and the mechanic says: “I think it’s the transmission.”

You say: “Well, I read a few issues of Popular Mechanics, and I listened to Car Talk, and I think it’s the carburetor.”

“But your car doesn’t have a carburetor,” the mechanic says.

“Says you,” comes the confident answer. At which point the mechanic will (or should) hand your keys back to you and tell you to pound sand.

Full piece written by Tom Nichols can be found here. Nichols expresses his frustration at the internet making every man an expert in everything, reducing the important role of experts in society. I figured some guys on this forum would appreciate this as guys often point out their expertise on a particular subject only to have someone cite a youtube video to discredit their years of research and work.

Quote:

More seriously, I wonder if we are witnessing the “death of expertise:” a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any division between students and teachers, knowers and wonderers, or even 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. A fair number of Americans now seem to reject the notion that one person is more likely to be right about something, due to education, experience, or other attributes of achievement, than any other.

Quote:

This ceaseless demand for information is especially frustrating, because people often reject the parts of whatever information an expert might provide if that information conflicts with their previously held beliefs. When they’re told something they don’t like, they reject what they’re hearing by saying “well, that’s not really evidence.”

Well, yes, it is. Moreover, the ordinary interlocutor in such debates isn’t really equipped to decide what constitutes “evidence” and what doesn’t...
Sometimes, all we are left with is to ask people to take our word on it, a request we’ve earned through experience, research, publication, service, etc.

He finishes the piece with some solid information on arguing with experts that I figured quite a few of the dudes here would appreciate.

Quote:

Anyway, expertise isn’t going away, but unless we return it to a healthy role in public policy, we’re going to have stupider and less productive arguments every day. So here’s a good set of rules of thumb when arguing with an expert:

1. The expert isn’t always right.
2. But an expert is far more likely to be right than you are.
3. Your opinions have value in terms of what you want to see happen, how you view justice and right. Your analysis as a layman has far less value, and probably isn’t — indeed, almost certainly isn’t — as good as you think it is.
4. On a question of factual interpretation or evaluation, the expert’s view is likely to be better-informed than yours. At that point, you’re best served by listening, not carping and arguing.
   

[Daddy]

I get the gist of the article, but it's not so simple. To me it depends on which kind of experts.

Experts like mechanics apply a more or less exact science while experts like sociologists apply soft subjective sciences. I don't trust human scientists.

Even experts like doctors can't be trusted with everything. They study and follow what has been taught to them at their university at the time, but how many of them keep honing their craft? Some doctors will still tell you with a convincing face that eating fat is bad. They're just not up to date.

In addition, I laugh at certain expert professions like psychologists. They're supposed to be people who are able to make others better, and they did so by going to university and reading books.

[amuseBouche]

I remember reading about 'software eating the world' with the implication being that anything with a informational component will be hollowed out. Computers already diagnose some diseases with more accuracy than senior physicians. Most complaints from "experts" moving forward will mostly be sour grapes. Learn to work with new tech or become a pauper. There won't be much middle ground.

[The Lizard of Oz]

This tells you all you need to know:

Quote:

I am (or at least think I am) an expert. Not on everything, but on many things in a particular but wide area of human knowledge, specifically social science and public policy

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that the guy is not, for example, an actual car mechanic complaining about how no one listens to him because of youtube, but an "expert" in "social science and public policy".

It's always these pseudo-experts in nonsense non-fields who are whining about this for the very simple reason that they are enraged by getting any pushback from the unwashed but google-equipped masses. Like the good party hacks that they are, they want to be able to lay down the party line and have the proletariat follow.

The truth is that the amount of real hard-core knowledge available on the internet is vast and growing, and it is making an immense and incalculable contribution to people's lives. Are there some "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" situations here and there? Sure, but to harp on them is to miss the forest for the trees.

And you never hear any hard core experts in technical fields whining about this. One thing that distinguishes a true expert is that he is always ready and willing to talk about the intricacies of his expertise with anyone, because they are always at his fingertips. Can you imagine Peter Hurley, the head shot photographer from those great jawline and squinching videos, being offended because someone else tries to argue with him? Fuck no, he'd overwhelm them with hard-core expert knowledge and demos and have them converted inside of 5 minutes. Instead it's these "policy experts" and "climate scientists" who feel so threatened in their bogus non-expertise that they need to resort to authority and "consensus" at the earliest opportunity.

Unfortunately the death of this kind of expertise is not really upon us -- there is far too much respect for credentialism and "consensus" in areas where it is not in the least warranted. But it is telling that the least pushback is provoking this sort of fearful and censorious response.

[Saga]

^^^ Very true...the public has gotten one too many whiffs of "social scientists" trying to argue that up is down and it's created an underlying skepticism of their purported "expertise". It's the richly earned product of academia's arrogance and illogical sophistry.

Still, I think the article gets at something that is an issue: people today seem less inclined to genuinely listen to others who know more about a subject. Deference to (though not blind acceptance of) the more knowledgeable is an act that requires some humility and respect for achievement...and many don't have either.

[Sawyer]

Quote:

I am (or at least think I am) an expert. Not on everything, but on many things in a particular but wide area of human knowledge, specifically social science and public policy

Translation: Can we please start marching rednecks off to the internment camps now?

[amuseBouche]

Liz,

I got to disagree with ya on this one. I think it's the exact opposite. Disregarding the exact examples, I think it's the technical expertise that can be easily devalued. Yea the guy in the photography videos knows what he's talking about, but so do many others. Why did we watch his? Maybe because he had the marketing chops and savvy to produce and distribute a high quality video with enticing thumbnail. What I'm getting at is that "soft skills" are what will grow ever more important. It's what will set you apart. Probably more than most technical skills that don't require an additional understanding of human nature and persuasion. How many developers get passed up for promotions because they can't communicate the projects they are working on in a compelling way?

Again you have to ask yourself why that particular headshot video has over a million views while some obscure photography blog could have told you the same thing in less time.

[The Lizard of Oz]

amuseBouche, I'm not quite sure what you're disagreeing with.

Having the ability to communicate knowledge memorably and effectively is a great skill all by itself. Yes, anyone who has it will be more successful -- how is this a problem? And has it ever been otherwise?

In this example, what makes the videos great is that the guy is both a hard-core top expert and an effective and memorable communicator. If he mumbled incoherently instead, no one would watch the videos, nor should they. If someone has expert knowledge but lacks the ability to communicate it effectively, then he should team up with someone else who does have that ability -- this happens all the time too. I still don't see the problem.

And by the by, I know a bit about this stuff and you would not find the tips that Hurley is talking about on any obscure photography blog. The dude is unusually good and has some real insights. I'm not saying that there is no one else in the world who knows this stuff, but you'd be surprised at the difference between a true top expert like this guy and some mediocre run-of-the-mill professional photographer. That is a real difference there.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Further -- are there slick snake oil salesmen out there who have no real knowledge but can fool some people with their patter? Of course.

But that has always been the case. And rather than making things worse, the transparency and interconnectedness of the internet is making the sorting out process far more efficient than before.

[amuseBouche]

I'm not saying it's one way or the other. When I talk about marketing, I assume the person has enough technical skill to speak intelligently about it. I understand your sentiment about the photographer as not only does he provide substance, but perhaps his charisma and excitement are derived from his confidence in the subject.

My point is that he may be very good, but there may be more obscure resources that offer a better more detailed perspective. And many of them.

It's his branding (to use an umbrella term) that separates him.

Not everyone that watches his video needs every insight he provides. Some just want the main takeaways so they can look better during their next duckface pose. And with the proliferation of knowledge nowadays, it's easy to reach the point of diminishing returns without having to shell out a pretty penny for consultations.

80/20 rule. With the internet these days, it's become increasingly easier to reach 80. Not everyone wants to get to 100, and the ones that do are often the experts themselves.

I think it's much harder to garner attention and succeed in motivating people than it is to present them with information.

Day Bang is 10 dollars. It has all the technical information you need.

How much would you pay for someone who knows day game front to back not only through scholarship but through empiricism AND could communicate it in a way that you improve each week? I'd say a weekly review with Roosh in tow would be more valuable in your progression than the book alone.

(^referring to motivation as a ancillary skill of marketing)

In the photographers case marketing and expertise are not mutually exclusive. But I've witnessed many cases where it has been. Also it'd be hard to outsource personal branding. You can't hire someone to sit in for you during salary negotiations. You can't have someone else speak up for you during Monday morning meetings. You can't put someone else's face on your portfolio website.

[Neo]

I disagree with his view that the internet makes every man an expert.

What the internet does for the majority of people is make them pseudo-experts, they believe they have knowledge but in reality they don't know shit. I see this all the time with people who read one article or one book on something and all of sudden act like they know everything about the subject.

As a BJJ saying goes. "You know 1000 techniques and you suck at all of them." What the quote is getting is is breadth vs. depth of knowledge.

There are a lot of people who on the surface appear to be very knowledgeable about a subject, but when you start questioning and asking harder questions they fall apart. I've seen this a lot over the past year when I've interviewed people for positions. Ask them a question that needs more than a cursory google search to answer, and they sit there unable to answer.

What the internet does is give nearly everyone easy access to whatever information they need. The hard work and execution is up to you. It's the second part of the equation that separates the winners from the losers.

[Vaun]

this summed it up for me a few years ago

[The Lizard of Oz]

This post by thedude about homemade pizza is a great real time illustration of what hard-core expertise communicated in a fluent and memorable way looks and feels like. And it's a perfect example of how the internet enables dissemination of hard-won first hand knowledge that others (non-experts) can put to use.

[DVY]

Another big point in medical/dental field is ambulance-chasing litigation. Its very expensive to be wrong.

Why take a risk when you can collect a steady paycheck w/no head-ache. This whole CYA thing has gone way too far imo.

[Sombro]

Somewhat related to "expertise" I think is "executive function":

Quote:

Executive function is one of the core attributes of masculinity. Unlike theoretical ability, executive function aims at the achievement of practical results. The ability to impose your will on circumstances is one of the marks of a successful man and one of the most attractive features mature women find in men and a man without it is profoundly unattractive.

Executive function is itself composed of a collection of other human attributes. There needs to be some practical knowledge i.e "street smarts" in how to achieve goals, there has to be industriousness and ability to stick at a task, tenacity in order to face opposition and prudence in know when to act appropriately. Clearly, there are genetic components to these domains of human behaviour; some men are born natural leaders but it's also clear that environment plays an role, and the current cultural-social-political environment is profoundly hostile to it's development. Genetics may set limits on "leadership expression"and executive function but it' s environment which fosters its growth.

Executive function needs a Darwinian environment in which to thrive and develop but our society has become less Darwinian with time. For example, the social welfare state, protects men from the consequences of their action, so failures (Aspy's, I don't mean the genuinely sick or incapable) just limp along without needing to put any effort into their life. (Big problem in Europe with its massive social welfare state) Men end up being grown "mummy's boys" protected by the state instead of their family.

Prolonged prosperity and wealth also poison its development. Firstly, by wealth providing a buffer between stupid action and consequence and secondly, by providing a secure environment in which thinking about survival becomes unnecessary and executive function thus atrophies. Witness the effect that loss of employment has on unionised workers who "expect a job" to be there, never ever considering the fact that their job is due to the consequence of some evil capitalist's executive function.

Thirdly, the socialist/egalitarian cultural undercurrent in the West, manifest in so many law's and day to day cultural habits, push away at the man who legitimately tries to assert himself. As Mencken said, the worst crime in Democracy is not to assert your superiority but to prove it. Thus mediocrity thrives and excellence is quashed.

More here:

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2014/01/fops.html