4 ms·
> You’re probably not being punked; you’re being babied. So if and when you go fact-checking the experts’ recommendations, remember that they probably do have t
by jkingsbery 6y ago
> You’re probably not being punked; you’re being babied. So if and when you go fact-checking the experts’ recommendations, remember that they probably do have their assessment of your own best interests in mind. Think of them as an overprotective parent, not as an enemy.
But... we're not babies. I get that many experts have good intentions. But treating adults like babies is a good way to come across as an enemy.
> When experts make guesses about whether the public can handle the truth, they aren’t acting as experts; they’re acting as amateurs. They’re winging it.
This is a start, but it's bigger than this. Experts are amateurs at understanding all the nuances of anyone's daily lives beyond their own. It's not just that they say "I'll lie here, because it will be good for people," and they misjudge how people handle lies. It's that very often experts have revealed that they don't understand what it means for something to be "good for people" beyond their narrow expertise.
- afarrell 6y agoSometimes you have to make the least-bad choice that you can based on the information you have available. Sometimes you know that you will fail and have to choose the least-lethal way to fail.
- jkingsbery 6y agoAgreed... but who is "you" in the sentence? Unfortunately, it seems to me experts increasingly think that their domain is the only one that matters, so they (as experts) should make decisions without consulting on whether someone in a different field that might have more, better information. Also, the "least-lethal way to fail" argument assumes that there aren't other lethal trade-offs coming from down stream impact in areas outside an expert's vision.