5 ms·

The public confidence in experts is rapidly eroding in many sectors, in all major political factions. I would not want to bet on a near-term future that relies

The public confidence in experts is rapidly eroding in many sectors, in all major political factions. I would not want to bet on a near-term future that relies on public confidence in experts to function normally. It worked really, really well for the better part of the last century, but complexity and technology has grown exponentially, which makes that a less tenable system.

rayiner 6y ago
It’s not merely growing complexity. It’s that increasingly experts don’t share basic assumptions with the public. Prop 16, which would repeal the affirmative action ban in California, was pushed heavily by educational experts. It failed by a large margin. Here is how the Center for New American Progress, a think tank (whose CEO will lead Biden’s OMB), responded: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecondary/news/2020/11/24/493186/california-not-bellwether-affirmative-action/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecond... This is one assertion they made to support trying again with different poll wording: > Moreover, older voters who remember the 1996 ban may hold the misleading view that the law was a “prohibition against discrimination,” as the law’s original backers framed it in this way. This is just a play on the fact that your average person defines “discrimination” quite literally (the majority of every racial group say race shouldn’t be even a small factor in college admissions). But educational experts often have a different view of “discrimination.” Thus it’s “misleading,” the article asserts, to say that the existing provision that bans disparate treatment by race is a ban on “discrimination.” When experts change the meaning of commonly understood words to get a different polling result, do you think that creates trust? (FWIW, I supported repealing the ban in California initially. But when you ask people “do you want to give some people more resources, preferential treatment, etc., in order to erase historic disparities” they say “no.” I want to do that, within reason. But it’s a dog that won’t hunt. So experts keep playing with the language, coming up with terms like “equity.” And thats made me very skeptical of trusting educational experts with these new powers.)
pdonis 6y ago
> It worked really, really well for the better part of the last century No, it didn't. Rule by experts got us a world war, a great depression, another world war, a Holocaust, tens of millions of people killed by Communist governments and well over a billion still ruled by one in China. And that's just picking out the biggest few items. The reason public confidence in experts is eroding is not that the experts have gotten worse. It's that the experts have lost control over the flow of information, so now they can't prevent everyone else from finding out how bad they actually are and always have been.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Don’t forget eugenics.

rayiner 6y ago

It’s not merely growing complexity. It’s that increasingly experts don’t share basic assumptions with the public. Prop 16, which would repeal the affirmative action ban in California, was pushed heavily by educational experts. It failed by a large margin. Here is how the Center for New American Progress, a think tank (whose CEO will lead Biden’s OMB), responded: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecondary/news/2020/11/24/493186/california-not-bellwether-affirmative-action/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecond... This is one assertion they made to support trying again with different poll wording: > Moreover, older voters who remember the 1996 ban may hold the misleading view that the law was a “prohibition against discrimination,” as the law’s original backers framed it in this way. This is just a play on the fact that your average person defines “discrimination” quite literally (the majority of every racial group say race shouldn’t be even a small factor in college admissions). But educational experts often have a different view of “discrimination.” Thus it’s “misleading,” the article asserts, to say that the existing provision that bans disparate treatment by race is a ban on “discrimination.” When experts change the meaning of commonly understood words to get a different polling result, do you think that creates trust? (FWIW, I supported repealing the ban in California initially. But when you ask people “do you want to give some people more resources, preferential treatment, etc., in order to erase historic disparities” they say “no.” I want to do that, within reason. But it’s a dog that won’t hunt. So experts keep playing with the language, coming up with terms like “equity.” And thats made me very skeptical of trusting educational experts with these new powers.)

pdonis 6y ago

> It worked really, really well for the better part of the last century No, it didn't. Rule by experts got us a world war, a great depression, another world war, a Holocaust, tens of millions of people killed by Communist governments and well over a billion still ruled by one in China. And that's just picking out the biggest few items. The reason public confidence in experts is eroding is not that the experts have gotten worse. It's that the experts have lost control over the flow of information, so now they can't prevent everyone else from finding out how bad they actually are and always have been.

rayiner 6y ago
Don’t forget eugenics.