The problem with thinking you know more than the experts

[Chuckanut]

One of the problems is that so many news sources use the same old faces every day to give us the 'expert' option. PBS has two people who tell us what all the Federal government related stuff means. The same two. Every day. I can tell you before they open their mouths what they are going to say. CBS has the same doctor telling us what medical news means, on their newscasts, on their interview shows, and so on.

FWIW, I have found Peter Attia's interviews to be the best source. A few weeks ago he had a Dr. on who flatly stated that testing would be a problem since things like swabs and reagents would be in short supply. We can't make them here and have to depend on foreign sources in authoritarian countries. Aren't we lucky?

 

[DallasGuy]

One of the problems is that so many news sources use the same old faces every day to give us the 'expert' option. PBS has two people who tell us what all the Federal government related stuff means. The same two. Every day. I can tell you before they open their mouths what they are going to say. CBS has the same doctor telling us what medical news means, on their newscasts, on their interview shows, and so on.

FWIW, I have found Peter Attia's interviews to be the best source. A few weeks ago he had a Dr. on who flatly stated that testing would be a problem since things like swabs and reagents would be in short supply. We can't make them here and have to depend on foreign sources in authoritarian countries. Aren't we lucky?

I think the problem is not that they tell us the same thing every day but that the pandemic actually doesn't change that much from one day to the next. So media outlets are covering the pandemic every single day and there isn't much new to tell...so they just keep repeating what they said the day before. Yeah, things eventually start to change but at such a slow pace that there really isn't much to say that is truly "news". Out of a 30 minute news show, there's probably about 1 minute of it that is actually new.

 

[MichaelB]

This is in part our own doing, because our desire for news and more detail is insatiable. From Caitlin Rivers (epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins) twitter feed

https://twitter.com/x/status/1251138758436687877

If experts tell you something is unknowable, don’t keep asking new people until you get a straight answer. Because in doing so you haven’t found the truth, you have found someone who wants your ear.
./.
They say there are things we know to be true, things we think to be true, and opinions and speculation. I would add a fourth layer, things we definitely don’t know. A good advisor will spend as much time as necessary to walk through all four and explain which is which.
./.
There is a lot in that fourth category right now. Sometimes “we don’t know” really is the answer. We have never faced COVID-19 – or any pandemic like this – in modern times. We are having to live with uncertainty in really profound ways. It’s hard

 

[Bestwifeever]

It's scary because it's true. First news got tarred as fake, now science....

 

[MuirWannabe]

This is in part our own doing, because our desire for news and more detail is insatiable. From Caitlin Rivers (epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins) twitter feed

https://twitter.com/x/status/1251138758436687877

Those are great quotes. ‘I don’t know’ or ‘we don’t know’ is almost impossible to admit or acknowledge even when it clearly is the case. Probably cause it’s known the ‘other side’ will use that admission as a cudgel.

And we really are a bunch of ultracrepidarians, especially with the web at fingers reach.

 

[brewer12345]

Consider this,

Media bias

Some Expert bias

Individual bias........

It's just a never ending circle....I guess you can either believe everyone or no one....A poster mentioned WP, they have a running thread of virus news updates is open with no paywall. Yet along with daily death numbers and other factual items they clearly posts comments that are 100% opinion pieces. This morning they linked to an article in the Daily Mail that was an opinion pieces by Piers Morgan.. a guy who never met a crisis he didn't love because he get clicks. There is no world where Piers is an expert..But there he was along side quotes from WHO and CDC..

WaPo, NYT, my local paper the Denver Post and all the rest routinely exhibit the obvious slant and bias of the journalistic profession and in the last several years have basically erased the distinction between news articles and editorials. I imagine many/most are headed for bankruptcy (again in some cases) and I will not miss them when they do.

 

[sengsational]

That doesn’t mean we’re all equally biased, or equally (un)aware of our biases. Some people are at least aware of other POVs, some are very deliberately not. That can make all the difference.

I look for humility and nuance in what I pay attention to. If someone 'knows what's true' or 'knows how it really is', they get none of my attention. I don't watch any "news", but if I did, that principle would apply. Unfortunately, human nature, being what it is, many people seek "the truth" probably because they are not smart enough to understand the complete picture. I include myself in the category of "not smart enough", even when it's something "obvious". The reason is that my record is quite flawed in predicting how various interactions end up playing out. To me, admitting I don't know makes life more interesting because I can swim around in the ideas that are in the middle.

 

[braumeister]

WaPo, NYT, my local paper the Denver Post and all the rest routinely exhibit the obvious slant and bias of the journalistic profession and in the last several years have basically erased the distinction between news articles and editorials. I imagine many/most are headed for bankruptcy (again in some cases) and I will not miss them when they do.

You're being much too kind when you say "the last several years".
It goes back at least to the latter part of the 19th century. If there weren't so much profit to be made by pandering to the lowest common denominator, then Pulitzer and Hearst could never have become the extremely wealthy media barons they were.

 

[Midpack]

This is in part our own doing, because our desire for news and more detail is insatiable. From Caitlin Rivers (epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins) twitter feed

https://twitter.com/x/status/1251138758436687877

If experts tell you something is unknowable, don’t keep asking new people until you get a straight answer. Because in doing so you haven’t found the truth, you have found someone who wants your ear.
./.
They say there are things we know to be true, things we think to be true, and opinions and speculation. I would add a fourth layer, things we definitely don’t know. A good advisor will spend as much time as necessary to walk through all four and explain which is which.
./.
There is a lot in that fourth category right now. Sometimes “we don’t know” really is the answer. We have never faced COVID-19 – or any pandemic like this – in modern times. We are having to live with uncertainty in really profound ways. It’s hard Today 09:13 AM

+2. Those are good. I find my quest for answers to be "insatiable," not sure why. I'd like to think I normally get more right than wrong, but my % wrong has certainly increased with coronavirus. Maybe reading the above will add some perspective to my "quest." I need to take a breath more often.

Most of our media sources are guilty of the first mistake, doggedly asking anyone who's willing to answer (qualified or not), and inevitably "experts" people give misinformation when they should say "we just don't know (yet)." You don't see or hear much "we don't know" for obvious commercial reasons...

It's ironic that we're locked down, which gives us more time to listen to "news," even when we know we should limit our exposure, at a time when there are even fewer answers than normal.

 

[brewer12345]

You're being much too kind when you say "the last several years".
It goes back at least to the latter part of the 19th century. If there weren't so much profit to be made by pandering to the lowest common denominator, then Pulitzer and Hearst could never have become the extremely wealthy media barons they were.

I would suggest the clickbait age has made it much worse.

 

[Texas Proud]

Even they are getting in on the act of pushing some agenda, on various slanted "news" media.
I think they often getting paid to say stuff. Like those old famous actors pushing reverse mortgages.. Paid to lie.

Yea, my DW tells me that the Drs are pushing stuff for money... I tend to agree at times...

 

[Texas Proud]

I think the OP was talking less about the media, and more about ourselves.

The former - change your sources if you don't like it, turn the channel, turn it off, etc.

The latter - get real with ourselves. How many posts here on Covid alone do you see members discounting medical professionals and questioning what they have done/said?

Perhaps it's human nature, but so many of us seem to quickly dig in and say "hmmph well I think that's wrong blah blah blah"

We get do well with a few index funds and everyone of us thinks we're John Bogle!

The big problem in this is that the experts do not even agree... there are many times I see the presidents group say one thing and then the Drs on the cable networks debunk what they say... the line I like the best is that it was 'disproved'...


Even countries have disagreed.... Sweden is going for the herd immunity and has not closed down... in the future we will be able to look back and see if that was the better way to do things as their economy has not cratered like ours...


They are also predicting a second and maybe a third wave here so in the end we might have a higher mortality rate...


Only time will tell which expert was right...

 

[Brat]

I listen to many podcasts 'published' by Vincent Racaniello. They include virology (Racaniello's area of expertise) https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/ and immunology https://www.microbe.tv/immune/ . The recent ones on immunology are particularly instructive. The guests are all professors in the field discussed or MD/PhDs engaged in research or patient care.

They all acknowledge that they are learning about the behavior and impact on the human body of this virus. Racaniello was involved in the development of polio vaccine, discussions about treatment and vaccine development are instructive.

These conversations typically include several knowledgeable contributors. There was one with a guest who worked for a Federal bioresearch agency where you could hear the intensity in his voice. I wish I could find it. These podcasts are over an hour long so settle in with a cup of coffee.

 

[48Fire]

I was fortunate to teach some leadership classes. One of the best simulations was on the value and recognition of experts. Some of the non-experts, but heavy on blowhard skills, would absolutely run over the experts on their team. And their listening ability was nearly zero [emoji23][emoji23]

 

[pacergal]

This is in part our own doing, because our desire for news and more detail is insatiable. From Caitlin Rivers (epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins) twitter feed

https://twitter.com/x/status/1251138758436687877

+1

 

[Midpack]

I was fortunate to teach some leadership classes. One of the best simulations was on the value and recognition of experts. Some of the non-experts, but heavy on blowhard skills, would absolutely run over the experts on their team. And their listening ability was nearly zero [emoji23][emoji23]

I watched that play out in person hundreds of times at Megacorp. I was undoubtedly the blowhard some of the time, at least when I was young and full of ambition.

 

[unclemick]

My favorite in working days was when a room full of engineers would agree and then we would spent the allotted meeting time arguing who was 'righter'. Grin

heh heh heh - media 'must' fill it's time slot.

 

[rk911]

I'd guess this is closely related to the widespread dissatisfaction and distrust with the mainstream media. The media likes to portray themselves as experts and quote experts, so I am sure the latter are tarred with the same brush.

the main problem with virtually most media? lack of curiosity and the inability to compose an actual question.

 

[besa]

If I only had a super computer. Oh wait, I do.

The www saved my life and allowed me to get well on my way to financial independence. My financial advisor was going to ruin me. Totally ruin me.

The www helps me all day and night.

It is the 8th wonder of the world.

I will take the bad with the good.

Thanks.

 

[Koolau]

If we define "expert" as someone who has actually studied and w*rked (in this case) in the virology field, I guess I haven't seen any yet (I could have missed it.) Rather, it seems we've picked physicians as our experts. They have an expertise certainly, but it may not be in the field we need to get through the current situation in the smoothest fashion. JMHO, of course.

If we base "expertise" on their 3-month track record, I STILL have not seen an expert ANYPLACE on TV. As always, YMMV.

 

[38Chevy454]

If I only had a super computer. Oh wait, I do.

The www saved my life and allowed me to get well on my way to financial independence. My financial advisor was going to ruin me. Totally ruin me.

The www helps me all day and night.

It is the 8th wonder of the world.

I will take the bad with the good.

Thanks.

...and here I thought compounding (financial math type) was the 8th wonder of the world

 

[Badger]

If we define "expert" as someone who has actually studied and w*rked (in this case) in the virology field, I guess I haven't seen any yet (I could have missed it.) Rather, it seems we've picked physicians as our experts. They have an expertise certainly, but it may not be in the field we need to get through the current situation in the smoothest fashion. JMHO, of course.

If we base "expertise" on their 3-month track record, I STILL have not seen an expert ANYPLACE on TV. As always, YMMV.

+1

I would always joke when called into the field to anywhere in the country to solve problems as the Senior Microbiologist/Chemical Engineer that an expert was someone who lived at least 50 miles away.


Anytime I see a reference to "the experts say..." I am very skeptical about what is said unless the expert is identified as well as the printed source of the study. Too many "50 mile experts" being used a credible source.



I am also skeptical of medical doctors who are quoted in the news when I don't know who they are and what their area of expertise is. For all I know they are a GP, or proctologist, or neurologist, or obstetrician or and not someone with a background in Virology or at least Microbiology.


There has also been an explosion of opinions based on nothing but uneducated conjecture by uneducated/unqualified people with no background in disease that are offered as factual.


Cheers!

 

[Joggernot]

Hong Kong Flu

I don't remember a lockdown for Hong Kong Flu. We even held Woodstock during the pandemic!

 

[lsimpson33]

Two things...

1) A lot of people view higher education (where a lot of our experts come from in the US) as a liberal conspiracy and liberal bastion. By politicizing experts, they encourage the “other side” to dismiss them. A typical us vs. them strategy. I find this hilarious, as I’ve worked in higher ed for over 15 years and found a lot more conservatism than I thought. In fact, the last university I worked at was heavily libertarian-leaning. With that said, the data shows that people with graduate degrees tend to lean liberal (except some notable degree exceptions such as law). So I think a lot of people think that higher ed turns people liberal. Maybe so, but it could also be self-selection or a variety of other confounds affecting the outcome. It’s a question or correlation vs. causation.

2) Relatedly, most people lack solid understanding of the scientific process and thus distrust it. The quasi-media (meaning those that don’t engage in thorough fact-checking and independent validation) definitely plays a role here (see: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/28/410313446/why-a-journalist-scammed-the-media-into-spreading-bad-chocolate-science). But overall it’s a lack of understanding of the process. People will say things to me like, “One study shows coffee is bad and another shows it’s good, so we can’t trust the experts.” Actually that doesn’t mean you can’t trust them; it just means that they are working something out. You can only play with a handful of variables at a time. Study 1 showed coffee was good. But then a different scientist looks at study 1 and says, “Yes but is that true for people from different ethnic groups?” And then they run a study and find it isn’t. But then another scientist looks at study 2 and says “Maybe it’s not the ethnicity, but it’s the diet of those ethnic groups holistically that matters.” And so forth. People think science is conclusions where they should really think about it as narrowing-down to a better answer.

 

[Nemo2]

......an expert was someone who lived at least 50 miles away.

That's why I only trust 16 year old high school dropouts from Sweden.