The Limits of Expertise

The limits of expertise seem to be due to the lack of skin in the game for these so called experts.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/beware-fau...

The executives at Blockbuster had skin in the game, they were experts, they got their asses kicked. Last election the Democrats had skin in the game, they were experts, they got their asses kicked. Recently the institutional Tesla shorts had skin in the game, they are experts, they got their asses kicked. So what does having skin in the game have to do with anything? Not much.

I have a feeling you didn't read the article, though, because it goes off on a different tangent. It asks us to differentiate between experts in closed systems, such as engineers, pilots, and surgeons, whose expertise goes largely unchallenged, and experts in open systems, which are far more complex and unpredictable.

The article suggests that anyone who claims to be an expert in an open system, and is self-assured in their expertise, is someone to be skeptical of. Open systems should be approached with humility. It's possible to be less wrong about the behaviors of open systems, but there's no reasonable expectation that you'll ever be right.

Experts know more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.

Generalists know less and less about more and more until they know nothing about everything.

The problem with using academic experts is that they are really just "historians" in the sense that they know what we know works and doesn't work or what is right or wrong.

Most of them can't predict the future (which have a lot of radical uncertainty) they only know what has been the case for now and what might be but with a huge deal of uncertainty (economist are some of the worst offenders of this or more precisely politicians usage of economists)

When it comes to politics/morals/geopolitics. No one is an expert other than those who actually make the decisions. You can be factually correct about why you make a decision and yet still make the wrong one.

Technical experts are different as they are dealing with a solid foundation that doesn't include much radical uncertainty.

> The executives at Blockbuster had skin in the game, they were experts, they got their asses kicked. Last election the Democrats had skin in the game, they were experts, they got their asses kicked. Recently the institutional Tesla shorts had skin in the game, they are experts, they got their asses kicked. So what does having skin in the game have to do with anything? Not much.

None of these examples show skin in the game. Executives at Blockbuster were almost all certainly wealthy prior to its demise, and its failure probably didn't affect their future earnings potential/job prospects. Institutional investors (non hedge fund) by definition have no skin in the game. Even by posting disappointing returns, a lot of their compensation is tied to a management fee, with future job prospects being lightly tied to prior returns.

My argument is that all experts should be looked at skeptically. Without the proper incentives/punishments for incorrect predictions, it doesn't matter to said expert whether they are right or wrong. Even with the "closed system" experts, mistakes are made. In the article, the author talks about car engines as a closed system. So why have there been so many car recalls?

Obviously expecting experts to be correct every single time is foolish, but my point is that for the most part, because the disincentive for an incorrect prediction is not proportional to the weight of the prediction, most expert claims should be taken skeptically.

Wow, that is a crazy headline! I wonder what the article actually says?

> “We work with parents from birth...Just about how to set up a culture of consent in their homes. ‘I’m going to change your nappy now, is that OK?’ Of course a baby’s not going to respond ‘yes mum, that’s awesome I’d love to have my nappy changed'.

> "But if you leave a space and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact then you’re letting that child know that their response matters," she said.

> [Snip]

> Carson quoted statistics reflecting how common sexual abuse is among children, and said the work her organization does follows international best practice in abuse prevention.

> "It teaches children their rights AND their responsibilities and connects them with people who care and can help. It invites their parents into the discussion and is sensitive to cultural and family values," she said.

This seems ...honestly pretty reasonable and well thought out to me.

You're right. The headline does speak for itself, because it certainly doesn't speak for the subject of the article.