4 ms·

I’m confused. Are you arguing for being ruled by non-experts? Sounds like you think we already are, what’s the problem? The opposite of “expert” isn’t “uses ma

I’m confused. Are you arguing for being ruled by non-experts? Sounds like you think we already are, what’s the problem? The opposite of “expert” isn’t “uses magical common sense to arrive at the right decision”, it’s “crapshoot”.

pdonis 6y ago
> Are you arguing for being ruled by non-experts? No, he is making the valid point that in many areas that are highly relevant to public policy, there are no experts. Those who call themselves "experts" actually aren't. Nobody has enough understanding of the problem domain to make accurate predictions. In such a case, the only viable solution is for nobody to "rule".
- scruple 6y ago
  "The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists." - Joan Robinson, 1955 She's not wrong. If my adulthood has taught me anything it's that supposed "experts" are oftentimes anything but. And they're certainly not trustworthy just because of their title or credentialing.
- afthonos 6y ago
  Decisions have to be made—including doing nothing. Someone is always "ruling". Diffusing responsibility does not change that fact (though it can have other significant benefits). I'm sympathetic to your POV, by the way, because uncritically listening to experts has literally killed millions of people in the past century. But the key word is "uncritically". Pushback is healthy, discussion is super-healthy; my position, though, is that in any argument, experts should get more weight unless the people arguing back have strong, on-the-ground evidence.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Decisions have to be made In general, I disagree. Most of the time decisions do not have to be made--more precisely, decisions by "leaders" who get to dictate what everyone must or must not do so not have to be made, and should not be made. Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity. > in any argument, experts should get more weight If "experts" is defined as "people who have a demonstrated track record of making accurate predictions in the past", then yes, I agree. However, by that criterion, as I said, in most domains that are of importance for public policy, there are no experts. Your statement, while correct in itself with that definition of "expert", does not help at all in those domains. Any other definition of "expert" does not justify your statement.
    - afthonos 6y ago
      > Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity. Again, "no decision" is a decision, especially in the presence of alternatives. > If "experts" is defined as "people who have a demonstrated track record of making accurate predictions in the past", then yes, I agree. How good must their track record be before they warrant more weight? 100%? 75%? 5% better than an average person's? I think each level warrants different levels of deference. If a perfect oracle speaks, you do what they say. If someone who spent a long time studying a very complex problem has an opinion, you listen carefully, and ask follow-up questions, but you don't pretend that the Google University™ twenty minute crash course on the topic is as informative. I recognize it's not simple (and it's fraught). But saying "there are no experts" when people dedicate their lives to studying a lot of these phenomena is only true if you demand 100% accuracy.
      - pdonis 6y ago
        > "no decision" is a decision "No decision" by leaders in a situation where there is not sufficient justification for ordering everyone to do or not do something, is not the same as "no decision" period. Individuals are still making decisions. > How good must their track record be before they warrant more weight? Good enough that their predicted benefits from a policy are reliable enough to justify the costs and risks of that policy. > If someone who spent a long time studying a very complex problem has an opinion, you listen carefully Not if they have no track record of accurate predictions. "Studying for a long time" is not a good proxy for that. Lots of people study complex topics for a long time without ever making any accurate predictions. > saying "there are no experts" when people dedicate their lives to studying a lot of these phenomena is only true if you demand 100% accuracy You're missing the point. It's not that the accuracy has to be 100%. It's that you're looking at the wrong thing. It doesn't matter how long someone has spent studying a topic. All that matters is their predictive track record. Looking at anything else just distracts you from what matters.
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        > Individuals are still making decisions. Or, the market is making decisions for them. And those are often obvious to predict.

pdonis 6y ago

> Are you arguing for being ruled by non-experts? No, he is making the valid point that in many areas that are highly relevant to public policy, there are no experts. Those who call themselves "experts" actually aren't. Nobody has enough understanding of the problem domain to make accurate predictions. In such a case, the only viable solution is for nobody to "rule".

scruple 6y ago
"The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists." - Joan Robinson, 1955 She's not wrong. If my adulthood has taught me anything it's that supposed "experts" are oftentimes anything but. And they're certainly not trustworthy just because of their title or credentialing.
afthonos 6y ago
Decisions have to be made—including doing nothing. Someone is always "ruling". Diffusing responsibility does not change that fact (though it can have other significant benefits). I'm sympathetic to your POV, by the way, because uncritically listening to experts has literally killed millions of people in the past century. But the key word is "uncritically". Pushback is healthy, discussion is super-healthy; my position, though, is that in any argument, experts should get more weight unless the people arguing back have strong, on-the-ground evidence.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Decisions have to be made In general, I disagree. Most of the time decisions do not have to be made--more precisely, decisions by "leaders" who get to dictate what everyone must or must not do so not have to be made, and should not be made. Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity. > in any argument, experts should get more weight If "experts" is defined as "people who have a demonstrated track record of making accurate predictions in the past", then yes, I agree. However, by that criterion, as I said, in most domains that are of importance for public policy, there are no experts. Your statement, while correct in itself with that definition of "expert", does not help at all in those domains. Any other definition of "expert" does not justify your statement.
  - afthonos 6y ago
    > Our political structure makes it seem like they do, but that's a bug in our political structure, not an actual necessity. Again, "no decision" is a decision, especially in the presence of alternatives. > If "experts" is defined as "people who have a demonstrated track record of making accurate predictions in the past", then yes, I agree. How good must their track record be before they warrant more weight? 100%? 75%? 5% better than an average person's? I think each level warrants different levels of deference. If a perfect oracle speaks, you do what they say. If someone who spent a long time studying a very complex problem has an opinion, you listen carefully, and ask follow-up questions, but you don't pretend that the Google University™ twenty minute crash course on the topic is as informative. I recognize it's not simple (and it's fraught). But saying "there are no experts" when people dedicate their lives to studying a lot of these phenomena is only true if you demand 100% accuracy.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      > "no decision" is a decision "No decision" by leaders in a situation where there is not sufficient justification for ordering everyone to do or not do something, is not the same as "no decision" period. Individuals are still making decisions. > How good must their track record be before they warrant more weight? Good enough that their predicted benefits from a policy are reliable enough to justify the costs and risks of that policy. > If someone who spent a long time studying a very complex problem has an opinion, you listen carefully Not if they have no track record of accurate predictions. "Studying for a long time" is not a good proxy for that. Lots of people study complex topics for a long time without ever making any accurate predictions. > saying "there are no experts" when people dedicate their lives to studying a lot of these phenomena is only true if you demand 100% accuracy You're missing the point. It's not that the accuracy has to be 100%. It's that you're looking at the wrong thing. It doesn't matter how long someone has spent studying a topic. All that matters is their predictive track record. Looking at anything else just distracts you from what matters.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        > Individuals are still making decisions. Or, the market is making decisions for them. And those are often obvious to predict.