Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Death Of Expertise

thefederalist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 164 posts

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#111

Post by msandford »

lliamander wrote: post #99
blhack wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here: http://www.usnwc.edu/Academics/Faculty/Thomas-M--Nichols,-Ph... >Thomas M. Nichols is a professor of national security affairs in the National Security Decision Making Department, where is also the Course Director for Security, Strategy, and Forces. A former Secretary of the Navy Fellow at the Naval War College, he previously taught international relations and Soviet/Russian affairs at Dartmouth College and Geo…

The problem is that the fields in which he is an expert have failed to provide sufficiently better predictive power over the judgement of a well-read or experienced layman[1]. I do not mean that as a criticism of the OP; this is merely a consequence of how young "social science" as a science is, and how difficult of a subject matter it attempts to study. The fact that a "2 sigma" level of confidence is considered acc…

Agreed 100%. You should only be considered an expert if you can make expert predictions.

In physics or engineering that's damn near trivial; for anything that the layman might want to know I can provide him with quite a good answer.

In the social sciences nobody actually KNOWS anything with any degree of certainty. And as for which policy is best, you might be able to give an answer that's good in aggregate or agreeable to the majority, but definitely not an optimal answer or something that everyone will agree with.

The problem is not that we don't trust the experts. We absolutely do. Experts have built the modern world in a very literal sense through science and engineering and skilled labor and whatnot. The problem is that he's a pseudo-expert and the laymen can sense that in their gut even if they can't clearly articulate it.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#112

Post by untilHellbanned »

kazagistar wrote: post #31
mudil wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"if you were a touch less condescending and arrogant, and refrained from making baseless judgments, you would get more up-votes." That's exactly why you are wrong. In your world, upvotes are based on niceties and political correctness, but in my world that should be based on experience and expertise.

In your posts, you demonstrated neither category of qualities, and thus deserve to be down-voted in either "world". (The real world is in between anyways, and it is the only world that counts.) The only expertise you demonstrate is in being a prick.

"..demonstrate is in being a prick.." i'm willing to bet your downvote of @mudil was due to this emotion rather than @mudil failing to demonstrate his expertise on HN culture

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#114

Post by lstamour »

Brian-Puccio wrote: post #46
EvanMiller wrote: post #18

I think what the author misses is the large institutional structure that restricts the supply of experts and (as a result) enhances their prestige. These days, with the growing availability of technical information, existing systems of licensure, credentialing, and professionalization are breeding resentment on both sides of the lectern. The author's focus in the article is on the layman's resentment for the expert.…

> To take a trivial example, I wear contact lenses. While I agree that an optometrist knows a lot more about vision correction than I do, I resent the fact that I have to pay a lot of money to sit in a chair in a dark room and wait for The Expert to deliver his Opinion about whether I need the -4.5's or -5's. People resent taking their car in for maintenance only to be told that they need to pay $110/hour to fix a pr…

> So we're back to the issue of how do we prove not just competence but excellence in a field?

See, that's what bugs me about this article. Not once did it address this most relevant of topics head on. It skirts it, suggesting that people don't even want to consider how someone becomes an "expert" to the point where the word "expert" is used insultingly. But I think part of it, a larger part, is simple cynicism stemming from the awareness we all now have that: with greater access to information, the world is less one-sided and more complicated than we expect. As we get more adjusted to having the Internet, we realize that anyone can "sound like an expert" and so -- to come back to my original point -- proof is important. I'm not saying "prove it," as the author did, for I'm just as willing to hear someone's backstory and trust via third-parties. But ... when it comes to what's on the news, to politics, to business, services, almost any point where an expert can be useful -- there's a sense of "if you do a good job, we'll trust you" that now more than ever withholds trust unless you can also be charming. Sadly, in news cycles especially, if you're doing a good job, no one will notice you or your "proof" until you screw up. And being an effective personality doesn't require expertise to have opinions.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#115

Post by FrankenPC »

As a layman, my opinion has little value apparently. Apologetics aside, I have noticed a massive cultural shift to computerized expert systems. These systems are systematically replacing live human experts in many mundane but important ways. And I believe we need to keep going in this direction. Paying homage to a human expert when IN SOME CASES their knowledge can be sucked into a program that can be distributed widely for low cost and very rapid consumption just makes sense. What are the ramifications of this new digital expert culture? Heavy reliance on automation which appears to lead to somewhat dull thought processes.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#116

Post by mb_72 »

vinceguidry wrote: post #95
EvanMiller wrote: post #18

I think what the author misses is the large institutional structure that restricts the supply of experts and (as a result) enhances their prestige. These days, with the growing availability of technical information, existing systems of licensure, credentialing, and professionalization are breeding resentment on both sides of the lectern. The author's focus in the article is on the layman's resentment for the expert.…

> What I love about computer programming is that basically all you need to be an expert on something is time, persistence, and an Internet connection. You also need a fourth thing, whip-sharp intelligence. You just won't get that far without it. Also proficiency is a much easier target to reach than expertise. I would call myself a proficient computer programmer, but not quite an expert. I feel like I'm at least a fe…

I'm so glad you mentioned that. Why? Because in the post you were replying to the author missed the (important) point that not all people who have access to the three ingredients listed will become equally good programmers. In fact, he seems to be of the assumption that anyone can become equally good at anything, given the same conditions. We can't. People have different skills, talents and abilities, and true 'experts' in a field - as well as putting in their 10k hours - possess some degree of natural talent in that area that other's do not.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#117

Post by yourdumb »

na85 wrote: post #80
Niten wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that Schneier is clearly an expert; it's the way you've reached that conclusion which I disagree with, as it could easily lead you to the wrong answer in any case where celebrity and actual expertise are not so happily aligned. > Based on a quick google search, I concluded the author of this blog post appears to only write short, shallow blog posts. [...] Okay, why is there no quick link to a summary of his q…

>I agree that Schneier is clearly an expert; it's the way you've reached that conclusion which I disagree with, as it could easily lead you to the wrong answer in any case where celebrity and actual expertise are not so happily aligned. I fail to see how; it's exceedingly rare to find true experts who haven't got publications of one sort or another to their name. >Well, there was this at the bottom of the article: "T…

You are dumb

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#118

Post by vellum »

teejae wrote: post #101
krakensden wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Danish university students tend not to have the same weird adversarial relationship with higher education My general impression is that Europeans pay a lot less for their higher education. I suspect that matters a lot.

Do not underestimate the price of taxes to pay for said education. It probably all comes out about the same. This assumes you also work and pay taxes to the entity that provided your education.

It's not close to the same. If you divide (public:private expenditures on tertiary education as % of GDP) by (tax rate as % of GDP), it's .029 : .005 for France, but in the US, it's .042 : .067.

http://statlinks.oecdcode.org/962012031P1G060.XLS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenu...

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#119

Post by na85 »

yourdumb wrote: post #117
na85 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I agree that Schneier is clearly an expert; it's the way you've reached that conclusion which I disagree with, as it could easily lead you to the wrong answer in any case where celebrity and actual expertise are not so happily aligned. I fail to see how; it's exceedingly rare to find true experts who haven't got publications of one sort or another to their name. >Well, there was this at the bottom of the article: "T…

You are dumb

Keep novelty accounts to reddit, please.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#120

Post by ahomescu1 »

nlew wrote: post #67
gcb0 wrote: post #51

"people who want to punish Congress for this or that law can’t name their own member of the House." If he really was an expert, he would see the underlining problem in this, instead of hatting the consequences of that problem. Maybe if he was an expert in any engineering field he would know how to identify a problem instead of generating bigotry on the consequences.

He's not generating bigotry. He is saying that people who are uneducated in politics on a fundamental level are trying to make the rules that govern us all. Not that they are valueless, or are in any way worse; just that they have no idea what they're talking about. You wouldn't ask a 6 year old how the government ought to be run. Why should you value the opinion of a 30 year old who hasn't actually learned any more…

> Why should you value the opinion of a 30 year old who hasn't actually learned any more about the topic in the intervening 24 years?

Because in many cases it's not about opinions, but about decisions that affect that 30-year old. For example, every citizen should get a say in whether taxes get raised, I really wouldn't leave that up to the experts.

Post reply on HN