The Day the Expert Died

While reading the memoirs of my anthropologist-archaeologist-former-priest great, great uncle, Luther Cressman, I came across an anecdote that reminded me of the times I've read various experts -- Seth Godin, Malcolm Gladwell, Chip and Dan Heath, etc. -- and disagreed vehemently with what they said, took note of it, and still was able to learn something useful without allowing that disagreement to soil my appreciation of them. Some aren't so lucky. There's a certain responsibility to being considered an expert in any field field, because there's a clear danger to the public when anyone's thoughts are not subjected to public examination.

Here's the (paraphrased) anecdote.

With his marriage to Margaret Mead on the rocks and having doubts about his involvement in the clergy and the church, Cressman ran across a man with whom he attended seminary and explained that he was planning to leave the priesthood.

The priest responded something along the lines of, "That's great. How I wish I could!"

In his book, Cressman reflected how, at the time, he was sympathetic to the priest's feelings, but ultimately he was even more sorry for the man's parishioners.

While I'm tempted to warn people to stick to what they know lest they become "dead experts" to those who had read them in the past, I concluded that it's fitting and proper that experts stretch themselves -- as long as they're intellectually honest enough to be open to be shown wrong -- especially when the area in dispute is foundational or categorical -- and to correct themselves when they are proved wrong.

The Expert Curse

It's possible to reach the right conclusion even if the premises are wrong. It happens probably more often than you think.

When it does happen, it can lead others to accept on faith that all the underlying principles are also correct, even though the expert doesn't really have any expertise or evidence to make a strong case for the premise. This premise becomes "common knowledge" and much of the world thinks about he underlying idea less critically, causing errors in fact and logic that lead to sometimes devastating mistakes in business and policy.

The answer isn't necessarily to shut out the experts entirely, but to remember to examine their assertions carefully and test them against both reason and experience.

These, along with will and courage, comprise our best defense against the designs of the experts and charlatans alike - even if they're the same group of people. - Cam Beck

Comments

[Ian Fitzpatrick]

A really thoughtful post, Cam. I'd have never reach the same conclusion from your Cressman anecdote, but artfully executed.

At times of chaos such as these, there exists a preponderance of self-ascribed expertise, making your post all the more relevant. Charlatans? Perhaps. More likely a bloated chattering class hiding all-to-often behind the veil of Social Media insiderism, it seems.

[Cam Beck]

Hi Ian - Thank you for your comment.

To me it boiled down to a question of credibility.

For spiritual advice, the congregation had to rely on a man whose heart was no longer in either the work or the faith -- the book doesn't explain which -- and whose output (work, advice, sermons, etc.) might be colored by that dissatisfaction and/or confusion, even though the congregation would have been ignorant of it.

That led me to think of other experts who happen to be wrong in any area, but who are so sure of themselves and who have such apparent "expert power" through their fame that it can be hard for the uncritical to realize it.

Your point about Social Media insiderism is well-taken, and was in fact one of the things I had in mind when I decided to write this post; the landscape changes every day.

At what point does expertise get outmoded and outdated? And how many of us will be wise enough to recognize it?