The Conditions of Expertise

Expertise can confusing these days in that we’ll often witness the disagreements that experts have with one another before the appropriate response is made. I imagine that this is due to the ease of access we have to information these days facilitated by the internet. Something to note is that these disagreements are normal. Humans don’t know everything and are far, far, far from that state, so many matters are left up to interpretation and have to be assessed before they can be proven or disproven. I once mentioned the issue with citing studies from the perspective of a layman, so I wanted to go more into depth with regards to the conditions that an expert of present times may find themselves in, how even their reason can turn out to be as flawed as that of a layman or even worse.

Before I go any further, I wanted to mention that this isn’t supposed to make you cynical of experts whatsoever, but it is worthwhile to be curious about what they say. The difference is that when I say curious, we support and assume good of them, not destroy and rush to assume ill. It’s about applying patience, compassion and understanding when we observe the possibility of an expert falling short.

Humans make errors and experts are no exception. It’s something we have to remember. However, that doesn’t mean we should assume that everything is an error or has to stay that way, nor should it diminish the credibility and significance of someone who constantly seeks sound knowledge, applying it to the best of his ability and for nothing but good.

What are the Chances?

A Field Guide to Lies and Statistics by Daniel Levitin goes into a lot of depth about the conditions of an expert. I love how simply he presents it.

Stuff happens. So it’s not that experts are never wrong, it’s just that, statistically, they’re more likely to be right.

From a perspective based upon Islamic principles, it’s that God decides to whom to bestow of what He knows to.

The book on statistics gives us an example of flight, something that Simon Sinek in his book Start with Why also mentions. The most renowned experts in multiple fields were brought together to figure out the science of heavier-than-air flight. At that time, many experts declared this impossible. We’d eventually realise that not only was it possible, some self-taught, determined dudes from nowhere who dropped out of high school and owned a bicycle shop figured it out. For the record, I mean no ill to them through any of those descriptions whatsoever.

What we want to recognise about experts who undergo the training that our present systems take us through is that they may not necessarily understand something, rather they have the potential to do so. This can be considered one of the limits of our system. We have what I refer to as expert assessments, but we also have expert opinions. Expert assessments are based on sound science or methodology. In other words, they did the research and ironed out what wrinkles they could spot before they reached a conclusion. In contrast, an expert opinion is simply what they lean towards. Some mental health experts may lean towards therapy, whilst others towards medicine. One side may quote the benefits of medication, stating the limits of therapy, whilst the other does the opposite. In reality, if both had positives and cases whereby one was more effective than the other, we should’ve instead been asking under what conditions each would apply best to and what their limits were if we were to properly assess the situation.

It’s like how salt and freshwater don’t mix well. Freshwater applies to rivers, whilst saline waters apply more so to the seas. They do mix, but extremely slowly, so you have to accept that there’s a clear boundary there.

A Grey Area Determined by Character

I believe it’s necessary to distinguish between the approach taken to an assessment and an opinion, as they might require two entirely different methods to employ, the latter of which doesn’t seem to be well addressed by the current system we have.

We could make the argument that an expert opinion is better than the opinion of the layman as it’s based on their assessment of the knowledge they have, but that isn’t necessarily true. It may even be far from it. In Daniel Kahneman’s book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, he presents multiple cases in which experts will fall for the same mistakes that your average Joe will make. The Art of Thinking Clearly by Rolf Dobelli alludes to a number of them too. This is all in addition to the book on statistics I’ve already mentioned.

The issue here is that we tend to draw our attention to facts, yet neglect to account for the character of the one relaying it. The difference between an assessment and an opinion is that an assessment will more often consider what we know, whilst an opinion will more often have to pass through the things we don’t know.

People are shaped by their emotions, by the people around them, through their preferences, their desires, their experiences, their position. As the saying goes, give a man a hammer, he’ll think that everything can be solved by one. The parent complains about their child, whilst the child complains of the parent. As much as it makes you a better person, we hate to account for our shortcomings. Even when we do, we may not always be able to do anything about it. If an expert is presented with a question that he hasn’t considered, then gives an opinion straight away, he’ll inevitably be influenced by his own preference because it determines which proofs come to mind first and which proofs he will most likely neglect. We call this the availability bias. I’m going to put forward a rhetorical question to illustrate my point about the significance of someone’s character when it comes to the worth of their opinion and even knowledge by extension,

Are you prepared to trust an expert who lies, exaggerates, belittles, rages, and puffs up on pride and arrogance?

All in all, I’m saying that an assessment has been thoroughly combed through to the best of their ability. It was never necessary for an expert to hold all of those traits, a single one would’ve been enough to hold their opinion under doubt. An expert’s opinion is less about the knowledge they have, and more about their character, alongside their state in the moment they’re expressing an opinion.

It Helps to be Nice

There’s so much more to consider with expertise, like the relative nature of expertise and how narrow expertise can be, as opposed to a single objective measure of it. Expertise is a slippery slope. Humans aren’t perfect, so a hint of curiosity, patience, humility and compassion from both sides will go a long way in coming to an appropriate understanding of something. In other words, it helps to be nice.