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

151–160 of 164 posts

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#151

Post by WalterBright »

yetanotherphd wrote: post #136
WalterBright wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a Harvard PhD in economics espouse on TV the false cost-push theory of inflation. It made me wonder what is taught in Harvard econ classes. Further undermining the credibility of econ degrees is an econ professor from my college stating that he believed in the free enterprise system, and the equal distribution of all income. The contradiction didn't seem to bother him in the slightest.

I hadn't heard of cost-push inflation before, and I didn't specialize in macro-economics. Who discredited this theory? The Wikipedia article says that according to Keynsians (and most modern economists are neo-Keynsians who beleive in sticky prices), prices are sticky downwards and so a supply shock to a single good would cause inflation. This seems to be an issue that could be resolved empirically. Are you familiar…

> I hadn't heard of cost-push inflation before, and I didn't specialize in macro-economics. Who discredited this theory?

Cost-push is described in Reisman's tome "Capitalism" and is shown why it is a false theory starting on pg. 907.

> perhaps your professor meant that he believed in free enterprise, but wanted to use the taxation system to make post-tax income much more equal? If so, there is no contradiction.

I quoted his exact words, and he did not qualify them. In particular he did not say "more equal", he said "equal". I remember it to this day because I was astonished.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#152

Post by DenisM »

jcape wrote: post #73
DenisM wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confusing a celebrity and an expert. Your primary care physician is an expert, but not a celebrity. We know that much because he is credentialed by a fairly reliable system. Celebrity status is simply one different way to ascertain expertise, and it's not that reliable - there are plenty of famous shamans, such as that guy with the debunked autism-vaccination link study.

Andrew Wakefield owns a patent on a single-measles vaccine, which would be a competitor to the MMR vaccine, and most people who are aware of that suspect that's why he published that shoddy nonsense about autism in the first place. In other words, he is very much an expert on (at least) the vaccinations in his study. His celebrity came later.

He's salted the earth though - antivax crowd would denounce his vaccine with as much pique and passion as they have dished on MMR. It just doesn't look like a good business plan...

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#153

Post by walshemj »

nickff wrote: post #69
walshemj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/democracy/chang... Or any general history text from say the last few hundred years. There was also a lot of opposition to translating the Bible into vulgar language as opposed to having a Latin speaking elite interpret it for the peasants and yeomen

Interesting article, but it does not make any argument with respect to expertise; that BBC article talks about 'skin in the game'. > only people with "a stake in the country", that is people who paid taxes and held property, should take part in politics

you really dont see the analogy?

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#154

Post by mathattack »

My professional experience has been the opposite. Over the course of my career, I've seen a steady decline in leadership, project management and general management. The return on skill has gone up. If you are the best in the world at your topic, the world is your oyster. Things turn around so quickly today, that specialists who can stay current can extract a ton of value quickly. It's tougher for leaders and managers.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#155

Post by turbojerry »

rapala wrote: post #145
turbojerry wrote: post #132

I'll start with the articles bullet points - 1. We can all stipulate: the expert isn’t always right. All humans are fallible, including "experts", such as Albert Einstein, who famously rejected Quantum Mechanics. 2. But an expert is far more likely to be right than you are. On a question of factual interpretation or evaluation, it shouldn’t engender insecurity or anxiety to think that an expert’s view is likely to be…

> Do I need to know the 12 Astrological Houses to reject astrology? Do I need to know the King James Bible to reject Christianity? Do I need to know Mein Kampf to reject Nazism? Do I need to know the Talmud to reject Zionism? Well, that is the catch. You don't need to know anything to reject something. But to argue against something, to have a discussion, requires you to know what you are arguing against. But things…

My point was that there are things that are not worth arguing against as there is a prima facie against them. So those arguing for those positions are either ignorant of the prima facie case or are trying to deceive, sometimes themselves as well as you and me. If you want a more current example take Irans nuclear program, I have people try to tell me that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, I used to point out that all 17 US intelligence agencies have said this is false, I have since stopped bothering and just avoid those people now.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#156

Post by summerdown2 »

ds9 wrote: post #141
blumkvist wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this article is about laymen's tendency to overestimate their own knowledge of a particular subject (typically every subject), thus resisting the opinion of people with formal (or non) authority. I, for one, share the author's view on this phenomenon. In my opinion it is a wide spread issue, maybe even pandemic in proportions. When was the last time you heard somebody not having an opinion on a particular sub…

It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect, mentioned and linked by the author. Basically, the less expertise, the more tendency to overestimate one's own knowledge and the worse the ability to accurately identify real experts. However, there is also a problem of misapplication of D-K. It is not always true (like all generalizations, it fails to give any sound basis for assessment of any particular individual); and it can…

I think there's a general misapplication of the Dunning-Kruger effect, too, which can be seen in this article. Most people (like the author) use the Dunning-Kruger effect to mean:

"stupid people don't know they're stupid."

This is true, but not the way the authors meant it to be taken. It was really meant to be addressed as

"maybe I don't know I'm stupid."

... taken that way, I think the author might have written a different article, wondering if he himself might be shutting away criticism.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incomp...

> Unfortunately, in those places ruled by the smug and complacent, a classic paper has become a weapon. The findings of Dunning and Kruger are being reduced to "Stupid people are so stupid that they don't know they are stupid." Rather bluntly, Dunning himself said, "The presence of the Dunning-Kruger effect, as it’s been come to be called, is that one should pause to worry about one’s own certainty, not the certainty of others."

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#157

Post by rapala »

turbojerry wrote: post #155
rapala wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do I need to know the 12 Astrological Houses to reject astrology? Do I need to know the King James Bible to reject Christianity? Do I need to know Mein Kampf to reject Nazism? Do I need to know the Talmud to reject Zionism? Well, that is the catch. You don't need to know anything to reject something. But to argue against something, to have a discussion, requires you to know what you are arguing against. But things…

My point was that there are things that are not worth arguing against as there is a prima facie against them. So those arguing for those positions are either ignorant of the prima facie case or are trying to deceive, sometimes themselves as well as you and me. If you want a more current example take Irans nuclear program, I have people try to tell me that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, I used to point out that…

Yeah, I agree that not every subject is worth arguing about. But if discussion is what you are after, then you need to know what you are talking about, or against. The nuclear program of Iran is a great example. You have done the research to know that those who are experts in the matter don't think Iran has a nuclear weapon program. The others are not prepared for the discussion.

(This certainty about Iran was actually news to me.)

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#158

Post by summerdown2 »

mudil wrote: post #29
nickff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if you were a touch less condescending and arrogant, and refrained from making baseless judgments, you would get more up-votes. How did you arrive at the conclusion that the "average user here is neither an expert in practically anything, nor likely a productive member of society"? I disagree with many users, but have no reason to indict them.

"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 my world, upvotes would be based on truth (correct relation to reality) and insight (ability to uncover new truths or present old truths in a new light).

Neither niceties/political correctness or experience/expertise should be reasons for an upvote unless the answer is correct or insightful.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#159

Post by turbojerry »

rapala wrote: post #157
turbojerry wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was that there are things that are not worth arguing against as there is a prima facie against them. So those arguing for those positions are either ignorant of the prima facie case or are trying to deceive, sometimes themselves as well as you and me. If you want a more current example take Irans nuclear program, I have people try to tell me that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, I used to point out that…

Yeah, I agree that not every subject is worth arguing about. But if discussion is what you are after, then you need to know what you are talking about, or against. The nuclear program of Iran is a great example. You have done the research to know that those who are experts in the matter don't think Iran has a nuclear weapon program. The others are not prepared for the discussion. (This certainty about Iran was actual…

The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate is where the Iran information originated, nothing has changed in the subsequent years.

'Mr Bush expresses anger that US intelligence agencies played a role in removing the option of military action against Iran over its nuclear programme.

He describes the "eye-popping declaration" in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judging with "high confidence" that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11722375

Comparing the factual analysis to the propaganda whether on Iraq WMD before the invasion or Irans nuclear programme now is certainly an interesting exercise.

Re: The Death Of Expertise

#160

Post by jcape »

DenisM wrote: post #152
jcape wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Andrew Wakefield owns a patent on a single-measles vaccine, which would be a competitor to the MMR vaccine, and most people who are aware of that suspect that's why he published that shoddy nonsense about autism in the first place. In other words, he is very much an expert on (at least) the vaccinations in his study. His celebrity came later.

He's salted the earth though - antivax crowd would denounce his vaccine with as much pique and passion as they have dished on MMR. It just doesn't look like a good business plan...

The anti-vaccination groups didn't exist at the time, so it's quite likely that Wakefield was just as startled by paranoiac monster he'd nurtured as anyone else. No member of the public (before or after Wakefield) actually knows anything about vaccines, other than the story about the Swine Flu vaccine killing more people than it saved... since any individual member of the public does not need to care about vaccines very often in their lifes, and therefore has little direct personal advantage in knowing more, vaccine safety is a very fragile exercise in blind trust.

Ironically, those who have lived and breathed vaccines for years (i.e. experts) seem to know nothing about that enormous trust placed in the vaccination process by the public---the public assumes it works and assumes it's there to keep you safe, but knows so little about them that even simple questions of safety will be translated into "vaccines bad."

Post reply on HN