> feedback A professor writes a children's picture book, about a subject within their field. They are unusually careful about correctness, for they fear the e

> feedback A professor writes a children's picture book, about a subject within their field. They are unusually careful about correctness, for they fear the embarrassment of "getting it wrong" in front of their peers. But the book contains an error outside their field, and addressing that, isn't a priority. So one thing I look for, are the incentives around getting things wrong. It varies at a finer grain than one might expect. Two individuals saying the same tiny thing, may have vastly different associated reputational risks. And an individual's risk, can vary greatly over adjacent subfields and types of claim. > domains Imagine a lunch-time party. You overhear an elderly gentleman ask: "So, you are a doctor?" "Yes, of medieval french literature." "Good, I have this question about my digestion...". Did you laugh? Ha! So many people just don't understand how expertise is distributed. Then across the room, you see a five-year old approaching a group of first-tier astronomy graduate students. She asks them "I have a new set of finger paints! I'm painting space! What color is the Sun? Which paint should I use?". Did you laugh? Ha! How large a group would she need ask, to get even 50-50 odds that they don't all give her the same wrong answer? Silly five-year old - she didn't even ask if any of them had a research focus in spectroscopy! So many people just don't understand how expertise is distributed within the science research community. [From my [1]] Understanding becomes ramshackle surprisingly rapidly, as you move away from someone's active research focus. A couple of years back, the PBS News Hour did a "free energy from water in your basement" story. In their later on-air retraction, they seemed defensive. After all, they'd checked the story with, as I fuzzily recall, some "Italian scientists". I suggest there is widespread misunderstanding about what expertise looks like. [1] Scientific expertise is not broadly distributed - an underappreciated obstacle to creating better content http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/MHjx6 http://www.clarifyscience.info/part/MHjx6