How to Use Expert Opinion

[Mark Nadler]

When the coronavirus panic set in I was traveling in Mexico.  My school completely shut down and went on line.  Instead of returning to Ohio, I decided to head to my second home
in Oahu.  A course I teach on how to think economically spends a single class meeting on understanding the role of experts in giving advice.  Listening to my neighbors, my children, and
most of mainstream media pleading with Trump and other politicians to listen to medical experts I have come to realize how few people understand the role of experts in giving advice.  A few days ago I was in the post office listening to a woman bad mouth Trump for not kowtowing to medical experts.  Personally, when it comes to managing this current disaster I really don't know if Trump has been a genius or a moron.  What I do know is that criticism directed toward Trump (and the Swedes for not shuting down their economy) is misdirected.  Below I explain why.


Recently I overheard a woman complaining to a friend about how President Trump would rather listen to his children about how to deal with the coronavirus rather than to health experts.  I have heard similar complaints from CNN and MSNBC.  She and much of the media suffer from a common misunderstanding over the role of experts.  One should never listen to experts.  Wise experts limit their advice on presenting the benefits and costs of different courses of action.   Experts all suffer from the same defect: they wear blinders.  Decision-makers such as presidents use expert knowledge as an input in making choices that require trade-offs.   Given the goals and the culture of healthcare professionals, their best advice might have us hunkered down in our caves until the coronavirus reaches levels approaching zero.  President Trump rightfully understands that at a certain level of coronavirus risk, it is better to let the economy reignite even if that policy kills a certain number of Americans.  Everything carries an economic price, including human life.

Karm Redland

[jrsforums]

When the coronavirus panic set in I was traveling in Mexico.  My school completely shut down and went on line.  Instead of returning to Ohio, I decided to head to my second home
in Oahu.  A course I teach on how to think economically spends a single class meeting on understanding the role of experts in giving advice.  Listening to my neighbors, my children, and
most of mainstream media pleading with Trump and other politicians to listen to medical experts I have come to realize how few people understand the role of experts in giving advice.  A few days ago I was in the post office listening to a woman bad mouth Trump for not kowtowing to medical experts.  Personally, when it comes to managing this current disaster I really don't know if Trump has been a genius or a moron.  What I do know is that criticism directed toward Trump (and the Swedes for not shuting down their economy) is misdirected.  Below I explain why.


Recently I overheard a woman complaining to a friend about how President Trump would rather listen to his children about how to deal with the coronavirus rather than to health experts.  I have heard similar complaints from CNN and MSNBC.  She and much of the media suffer from a common misunderstanding over the role of experts.  One should never listen to experts.  Wise experts limit their advice on presenting the benefits and costs of different courses of action.   Experts all suffer from the same defect: they wear blinders.  Decision-makers such as presidents use expert knowledge as an input in making choices that require trade-offs.   Given the goals and the culture of healthcare professionals, their best advice might have us hunkered down in our caves until the coronavirus reaches levels approaching zero.  President Trump rightfully understands that at a certain level of coronavirus risk, it is better to let the economy reignite even if that policy kills a certain number of Americans.  Everything carries an economic price, including human life.

Karm Redland

OK.....your life first.

[Alan Klein]

Liars, damned liars, and experts.

[chez]

Liars, damned liars, and experts.

Forgot to mention the bartender down the street where you get all your advice. Don't trust them experts...best listen to morons. On second thought...you do support Trump...so I can see where you get your guidance. Just take it easy on that Lysol, I heard it goes down better with a beer chaser.

[Jeremy Roussak]

If you want to discuss the role of experts, do it here. If you want to bicker about politics, there's a playpen waiting for you.

Jeremy

[Robert Roaldi]

Experts all suffer from the same defect: they wear blinders.

That's a big assumption. It leads to a bit of a circular argument, though, doesn't it? A bit like saying, what these people say is not trustworthy, therefore I don't trust them.

Moreover, your assumption does not at all match my experience. I have not met many experts who wear blinders, quite the opposite, the ones I've known are usually quite well-rounded. At worst, their knowledge about matters outside their primary domain was no worse than anyone else's.

However, I am certain that some experts exist that behave as you assert, they're not that hard to spot. The thing is, though, even non-experts wear blinders. There are generalists who are good at assimilating different viewpoints, and there are others who are bone stupid.

[Alan Klein]

98% of the experts were not able to predict the 2008 recession.  Why?  The facts were available to everyone.  A lot of experts just repeat what other so-called experts say.  It's laziness.  They don't independently do their own research.  So it becomes he said she said hearsay.  Even when you research, you always have to rely on other people's research.  GIGO  Garbage in-garbage out.  If the original facts are incorrect, then the predictions are defective.  So everyone gets it wrong.

Keeping it LULA oriented, it's like the rules of photography.  It is because we say it is. 

[Rob C]

That's a big assumption. It leads to a bit of a circular argument, though, doesn't it? A bit like saying, what these people say is not trustworthy, therefore I don't trust them.

Moreover, your assumption does not at all match my experience. I have not met many experts who wear blinders, quite the opposite, the ones I've known are usually quite well-rounded. At worst, their knowledge about matters outside their primary domain was no worse than anyone else's.

However, I am certain that some experts exist that behave as you assert, they're not that hard to spot. The thing is, though, even non-experts wear blinders. There are generalists who are good at assimilating different viewpoints, and there are others who are bone stupid.

The last lot just require a little online exposure, and voila: naked!

[JoeKitchen]

That's a big assumption. It leads to a bit of a circular argument, though, doesn't it? A bit like saying, what these people say is not trustworthy, therefore I don't trust them.

Moreover, your assumption does not at all match my experience. I have not met many experts who wear blinders, quite the opposite, the ones I've known are usually quite well-rounded. At worst, their knowledge about matters outside their primary domain was no worse than anyone else's.

However, I am certain that some experts exist that behave as you assert, they're not that hard to spot. The thing is, though, even non-experts wear blinders. There are generalists who are good at assimilating different viewpoints, and there are others who are bone stupid.

No, it is not.

Experts, by definition, have a narrow focus.  Maybe they will have additional knowledge on other fields, but their focus, when it comes to action, is on a narrow field.  They have blinders on when it comes to action. 

Politics is not a science, it's an art.  Politicians need to balance the input of all experts, not just medical, which is what many people right now are suggesting. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Experts, by definition, have a narrow focus. 

No, you and the OP are just asserting that. But because you both want to believe it, you accept it as fact.

[JoeKitchen]

No, you and the OP are just asserting that. But because you both want to believe it, you accept it as fact.

You can not be an expert on a wide range of topics, by definition.  It is just not possible.  Experts have a narrow field of focus, hence the blinders.   

Definition, an expert is a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.  Particular being not broad. 

[faberryman]

You can not be an expert on a wide range of topics, by definition.  It is just not possible. 

What about Alan?

[KLaban]

What about Alan?

Post of the month.

[chez]

You can not be an expert on a wide range of topics, by definition.  It is just not possible.  Experts have a narrow field of focus, hence the blinders.   

Definition, an expert is a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.  Particular being not broad.

Sure experts are "experts" in their field which can be narrow...but that does not mean in any way they are totally ignorant in other fields. I know surgeons that are experts in kidney surgeries but know a hell of a lot more than me about anything else to do with the human body. This friend of mine is also amazing with hockey trivia.

You seem to categorize an expert as some nerd that only has one very fine focus in life...that's just false.

[LesPalenik]

Sure experts are "experts" in their field which can be narrow...but that does not mean in any way they are totally ignorant in other fields. I know surgeons that are experts in kidney surgeries but know a hell of a lot more than me about anything else to do with the human body. This friend of mine is also amazing with hockey trivia.

You seem to categorize an expert as some nerd that only has one very fine focus in life...that's just false.

There are even some doctors and dentists who happen to be also good photographers.

[JoeKitchen]

Sure experts are "experts" in their field which can be narrow...but that does not mean in any way they are totally ignorant in other fields. I know surgeons that are experts in kidney surgeries but know a hell of a lot more than me about anything else to do with the human body. This friend of mine is also amazing with hockey trivia.

You seem to categorize an expert as some nerd that only has one very fine focus in life...that's just false.

Sure, but in a crisis they will revert back to their field of expertise as being the most important, to them. 

[faberryman]

Sure, but in a crisis they will revert back to their field of expertise as being the most important, to them.

Kind of depends on the nature of the crisis don't you think?

[chez]

Sure, but in a crisis they will revert back to their field of expertise as being the most important, to them.

And you know this how?

[armand]

As always, it depends.

There are various areas of expertise. If the field is less limited, like response to pandemics, they are actually pretty well rounded on what it implies in other fields too; being less narrow there is more uncertainty but they are still better than the next person who doesn't deal with this.


You are correct that the decisions should be made by listening to various experts and come up with the best compromise. However this implies listening to and trusting those experts. If you disregard what they say and decide to just go with your gut, you might as well not pretend that you used experts in your decision making.

[armand]

Post of the month.

+1