Dan Erwin

So You're Actually a Research Expert. . . Who Gives a Damn?

Back in 2017, I wrote a blog on the loss of expertise, picking up on the expertise of Dunning-Kruger and the more recent response of Tom Nichols. Nichols warned that we are moving toward the collapse of any division between professionals and laypeople. Given my recent experience, we’re no longer “moving toward,” but we’ve arrived at that collapse.

A few weeks ago I was asked by a coffee crony, a professional in planning (not a classical research specialist) to look over a psychiatric study dating from 1970 on “Characterological Deterrents to Economic Progress in People of Appalachia.” Before I opened a page, I remembered my bias against much “psychiatric research," built on the fact that most of them are technically, merely medical professionals who work off models in their field. Diagnostic specialists, not research specialists. It was obvious from the get-go that the writer had no understanding of theory construction, had no competency in critical thinking, was unaware that by the time of his study the model had been discredited, was unaware that he was drawing suspect conclusions, had no understanding of his implicit assumption, an assumption that was identical to Adolf Hitler’s orientation to the Jews--the notion that certain people and races are inherently sub-human. BTW, the majority of PhD’s also lack significant background in theory construction. They just use the typical theory from their discipline for their own research.

Here’s where I got an ear-full. ..

Eight Keys to Credible Political Candidates

These ideas have hit the shitter when it comes to a lot of voters. Still, it’s important to reinforce them, even in situations like today where a lot of voters belong to the category of the stupid. That’s a tough statement to make, but a recent Atlantic article by the ever insightful, always intelligent Jonathan Haidt, makes the point that a lot of voters fit the category. He begins with a rough translation of the Genesis story of the Tower of Babel, showing how it fits the context for the last 10 years or so.

“In the Book of Genesis, we are told that the descendants of Noah built a great city in the land of Shinar. They built a tower “with its top in the heavens” to “make a name” for themselves. God was offended by the hubris of humanity and said: ‘Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.’”

As Haidt points out, Babel is the best metaphor for confused, fractured America in the 2010s, and for the broken nation we now inhabit. “Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past.”

Growing up in the 1940s and ‘50s, there were plenty of Republicans who were willing and capable of governing. And the East Coast WASPs (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants—a tautology if there ever was one—all Anglo-Saxons are all white) were a lot more interested in governmental leadership than building their financial edifice. Those days are dead and gone.

Given the Babel metaphor, it’s time to revisit voting and political credibility.

So, what makes for a truly credible political candidate? Back in August 2012 I shared David Banks Star Tribune article where he begins with some smart definitions of what makes for credibility.  And credibility, in Banks' mind, doesn't mean ideologically correct.  So, with sincere hope that this might be of value to voters, I'll list eight of Banks' keys, make a few comments about them, broadening his emphasis to all legislators

3 Core Characteristics of a Real Expert

Or. . .how to know that the advice you’re getting is genuine expertise? One of the more important issues in my life and certainly in most of my clients over the years has been the issue of expertise. Does this guy know what he’s talking about? Can I trust his conclusion? The issue of trust is central for important matters. When I’m asking for insight, I want to know that the person I’m talking to has information of value. That if I were to follow up on his recommendation, I’d get what I want: the desired service or product.

“You can’t beat brains,” said President John Kennedy of the intellectuals and technicians he assembled in his cabinet. Kennedy was probably the greatest political champion for the virtues of expertise. But the champions of expertise have been on a serious downhill slope ever since. It’s pretty clear that all over America since the 1960s diverse groups have rejected expertise, especially that of social scientists, policy specialisms, climatologists and plenty of other disciplines. This is true of movements on both the political left and right. Although individuals and groups speak a different language, they’re often making the same point: human mastery over the world is profoundly limited. Just so, many believe that rational planning too should be limited. The anti-vaxx machinery is just one of today’s many rejections of expertise. There’s always been an anti-intellectual orientation in our country, but right now that anti-intellectual orientation is on steroids from both lefties and righties.

But let’s set that aside and just suppose you’re in a place where you want some expertise. Not necessarily life or death, but more ordinary job and relational expertise? How can you know the person you’re talking to is a real expert and can be trusted?

In a very helpful analysis of that subject, Kim Smith, a PhD student at the University of South Wales (UK) set out to actually define the core characteristics of the expert in most any field. Characteristics available to most any thoughtful layperson.

Research
In a fine piece of qualitative research, Smith first took into consideration the national, cultural and specialisms that would affect the definition of that issue. Included as well were various governments. He also recognized that the perspectives and definitions of an expert would vary from government to government and department to department. He also took chartered organizations into his purvey. Chartered organizations are institutions that require members with a pedigree of high professionalism, guaranteed by meeting specific membership criteria.

Uniquely (I would never have thought of this), he researched the general definitions of expertise required for legal experts, such as that provided in the Academy of Experts (2019): “An Expert Witness can be anyone with knowledge or experience of a particular field or discipline beyond that to be expected of a layman. The Expert Witness’s duty is to give to the Court or tribunal an impartial opinion on particular aspects of matters within his expertise which are in dispute.” This type of definition provides assurance of the integrity of the “expert” and his/her expertise in courts of law..