Against the Tyranny of the So-Called Experts

America’s elite – that collection of puffed up mediocrities who until recently held the undisputed command of the heights of our politics and culture – is in crisis. Its unbroken track record of failure has finally stirred the rest of America from its coma. The normals are now hella woke, and the elitists are being hella rejected. Unused to accountability, the elite is in a tizzy over the way people are not only blaming it for its myriad failures but are taking concrete steps to restrict its power. It’s not just electing Donald Trump. It’s ignoring the media, ignoring Hollywood stars, and ignoring the cabal of “experts” who presume to tell us how to live.

The best thing about being a member of the elite is that you really don’t have to do anything to become one. You can be born one – no matter how dumb or drug-addled you are, if you’re a Kennedy you’re elite regardless of how many times you blow the bar exam. Or you can become one by getting into the right school – remember, a Harvard degree does not mean you did well at Harvard. Everyone at Harvard does well – an “A” is a participation trophy. It’s getting in that matters, and getting in depends, in significant part, on who you are. Elite mom and dad, welcome to the Ivy League.

The elites, having been called out for their failure, are now trying to rebrand themselves as “experts.” It’s important to distinguish “elites” from “experts.” Elites want to be seen as experts because an expert is assumed to actually know something and to have some sort of technical skill. To be elite, you just have to be accepted as elite. That’s why elitists fudge the terms; they want the credibility of being experts without actually having to do what a real expert does.

Take, for example, the notorious New Yorker cartoon of the passenger on the plane electing himself pilot. The point, which the elitists think is brilliant, is that the running of government should be left to the experts without the participation of you people. Of course, pilots are trained in detailed technical skills and, critically, are accountable for their performance. If they fail, they get fired – or worse. [Insert Kennedy pilot joke here] If an elitist fails at an important job, she gets nominated for president. See the difference?

The point they want to make is that we should submit to their “expert” (really, elite) guidance, since we are unfit to determine our own destiny. Yet, when piloting this country over the last couple decades, these elites have flown the plane straight into the ground. Real experts are held accountable, but elites never are. Their landing is always soft – it’s never the elites who suffer while the normal prosper, only the other way around. The elitists always win – that’s why they are called “elite.”

Remember, whenever anyone tells you to blindly give up your input and rely on an “expert,” you stand a good chance of being scammed. Take a doctor. Doctors have a hard skill. They go through a lot of training. And medical malpractice kills about 98,000 people per year. Doctors are experts, but they are not perfect. No expert is. Nor are they perfectly disinterested technicians. A lot of doctors are terrible people – the worst divorces lawyers deal with are doctor divorces. Don’t confuse expertise with morality.

Like all humans, experts are self-interested. That’s why some doctors complain when their patients read up on their symptoms in Google. “Gosh, these peons are presuming to gain access to my secret knowledge – how dare they!” Yes – thanks to technology, much of what doctors do (which is maintain and use knowledge – many never touch a scalpel) can be done by normals on line. You have a symptom and you go to Web MD and often it answers your question – “Eww, that weird lump is a sebaceous cyst, not melanoma.”

The same with lawyers – go to LegalZoom to create your routine limited liability company and you’ll do it for a third of the price of the lawyer who merely changes the names on the last routine limited liability company formation documents he prepared. Trying a case is different – you probably want a technical expert who has done it before. But a lot of legal knowledge is not only accessible but employable by regular citizens; the laws restricting the practice of law to those with a license may protect some people from harm, but it also ensures we lawyers can restrict supply and thus justify our outrageous fees. Remember, a lot of “expertise” is not skill derived from experience but merely access to information. And when everyone has that access, well, the guilds get really protective of their turf.

The expert technocracy model of governance also depends on the underlying assumption of a disinterested, objective technician class that will protect others’ interests before its own. But the notion that a particular expert is disinterested and somehow only concerned with objective facts is simply silly. As a trial lawyer, I absolutely know the other side is always going to hire some “expert” to say exactly what needs to be said to help its case. We litigators regularly refer to experts as “whores” – it’s just assumed. Now, smart lawyers try to get honest experts – I’d much prefer to hear early that my client’s case has problems. But there are surprisingly few smart lawyers – again, simply because you are in an expert caste does not mean you are not a half-wit.

The simple fact is that when people push for government by expert, the experts they want running things will always – every single time – happen to have exactly the same policy preferences as the people pushing them. “Leave climate science to the experts!” Yeah, and in a shocking turn of events, the experts we are supposed to defer to feel the solution to climate change is to give more money and power to the people demanding “Leave climate science to the experts!”

And then there’s the problem of incompetent experts. This is especially true in the media, where the internet has made the journalistic gatekeeper model obsolete. These hacks are panicking, and trying to claw back their authority by labeling dissent “fake news” – that is, when they aren’t themselves publishing outright lies and propaganda they imagine we’ll buy into. Talk about, as Peggy Noonan aptly put it, being patronized by our inferiors.

You would think that if you presumed to tell the rest of us what to think that you might first ensure that you actually know stuff. But then, being elite means never having to actually accomplish anything, like knowing stuff. For example, Judd Legum, a senior apparatchik at ThinkProgress.org – the popular leftist political site best known for stuffing two questionable assertions into one web address – went on with Hugh Hewitt, who asked him a series of pretty basic questions about government and foreign policy. Well, it was pretty ugly. What he didn’t know was … extensive. I’d liken the segment to the Bataan Death March but Judd would probably not get the reference. He’ll have to check Wikipedia, just like everyone else. But then, if everyone else can do what Judd does, why do we need him and his ilk?

Experts aren’t what they used to be – that is, experts. “Experts” tell us that by an act of sheer desire, Dave can transform into Diane. That’s crazy. We try to outsource our moral judgment to “ethics experts” and end up with nutballs telling us infanticide is cool. The experts told us how there was an ice age coming. Then acid rain. Then ozone depletion. Then global warming. Then, when it didn’t actually get warmer, global climate change. Yet, somehow we are expected not to notice this litany of wrong and to just submit to the guidance of people who are literally never right.

Sure, if I had a brain tumor, I’d want a skilled neurosurgeon to take it out – though note how Dr. Ben Carson’s demonstrated track record of competence at that hard skill has earned him zero respect from the left, demonstrating that their alleged regard for expertise is simply another scam. But while I would rely on my doc for the technical work of cutting and slicing, his expertise does not apply to the other key issues involved – like whether I want to accept the consequences of the surgery on my quality of life. Questions that relate to our preferences and morals are not the province of experts. Nor should decisions regarding the principles and policies of our government be delegated to the technical experts charged with carrying them out.

We are American citizens. We can decide for ourselves what kind of nation we want to live in. That’s our decision. Experts? Well, you can provide advice, and then you can carry out our instructions. But don’t presume to do any more than that. You work for us, not vice versa.

Kurt Schlichter has been putting out some really great work.

This ties in with this excellent analysis of ongur elite forcing us to listen to them re how to live, vote and believe!

Nassim Taleb Exposes The World’s “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot” Class!

What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.

But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligenzia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence and fall into circularities?—?but their main skills is capacity to pass exams written by people like them.

With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3th of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.

Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats wanting to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They cant tell science from scientism?—?in fact in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types?—?those who want to “nudge” us into some behavior?—?much of what they call “rational” or “irrational” comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.) They are prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its components as we saw in the chapter extending the minority rule.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in many countries, the government’s role is ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and rarely seen outside specialized outlets, social media, and universities?—?most people have proper jobs and there are not many opening for the IYI.

Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite.
The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit.

When Plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences. While rich people believe in one tax dollar one vote, more humanistic ones in one man one vote, Monsanto in one lobbyist one vote, the IYI believes in one Ivy League degree one-vote, with some equivalence for foreign elite schools, and PhDs as these are needed in the club.

One of my favorites is what I call

THE ASSUMPTION OF CROSS-FIELD COMPETENCE.

This happens when you assume that someone who is competent in one area is competent in other areas.

One of my favorites was the two mile run in the Army.

The assumption was that the faster you could run two miles, the better Soldier you were.

Now, this was based on the assumption that if you could run two miles fast, it was because you were motivated and then trained hard to run two miles. Anyone so motivated would then also be motivated to train hard in all other aspects of being a Soldier.

Nice assumption, but it doesn’t hold up.

Some people are physically gifted to run a fast two miles. They don’t need to be motivated to train.

Some people who are physically gifted to run two miles are not mentally gifted.

Some people who can run two miles quickly are swine who lie and steal.

I also see this with lawyers running for office.

Lawyers are great at arguing. Look at Obama. He’s happiest when he’s arguing.

Running the Executive Branch?

He doesn’t know how, so he goes golfing to ignore his responsibilities.

Thanks for posting.

"Ideas have consequences." - Weaver.

The "Hillarian" idea--that declaring one's self a highly qualified "expert" by virtue of twenty-five years of claiming to be one--was soundly rejected by "the People" in most Counties in the U. S., on November 8, 2016.

By contrast, a newcomer to the world of politics whose claim of being a builder/developer could be substantiated by examining the buildings and real estate developments which exist because of his ability to envision, plan and cause to be brought into being by his efforts.

"As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?" - Federalist Papers, No. 63, 1788

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.