This is a valid point, and we should deffinately pay attention to experts, but it does not take into account the cumulative knowledge, experience, innovation, and ability to collectively think out of the box when you aggregate thousands or hundreds of thousands if they are willing and able to have an open and respectfull discussion.
Yes experts have much knowledge, but often this knowledge is then used by decission makers and they make the wrong decissions.
During covid we saw this time and time again, experts made advise and informed politicians, politicians made very bad policies, and the people in turn informed them through public discourse why the policies were wrong and the policies could be revised when there was not too much prestiege behind the original decission.
This inckuded decissions about face masks, closing down schools, making people stay home instead of being allowed to stay in their cabin in the woods, and not prioritizing vaccines for teachers high enough, and even the lack of privacy in poorely implemented apps for infection tracking.
You can make informed analysis based on research and papers and analysing facts, without beeing an expert on that exact field.
A large hive of informed people can also make a large contribution by ideating, making hypothesis, critiquing, and coming up with solutions that the experts would take a long time to come up with with, and through effective filtering of these ideas the experts have some golden nuggets to analyse and try out or do experiments on.
But yes, of course you should put high weight/faith on the advice made by imunologists when in a crisis.
Still, where I live the two leading imunologists operating 320 (US) miles appart, took radically opposing routes to handle the situation. That tells you it is often smart to err on the side of caution when lives are at stake.
At the sam time, another renowned imunologist predicted the near oblitteraion of the entire population. She did not have the ability to look outside pure numbers and look at differences in population density, travel, movement and other factors.
One of the leading sources of updated information to many descission makers in a hectic period in the early stages ended up being an aggregation of information grouped together by regular people, with regular jobs, but who was experts at organizing, reading and sumarizing without changing the information to their views.
But yes, 1 expert vs 1 regular person, I’ll go with the expert. 1 expert and 2.000 people against 800.000 people, I think I will make my own balanced decission somewhere in between, after educating myself on the next topic we get challenged by...
Imunology, radioactive fallout, project (miss)management, meassuring (and destroying) developer productivity, competing agile practices, education, care for elders, health care...
You bring it and prove me wrong, no matter what challenge you give me I will give you at least 5 possible paths to improvement...
Partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP | Financial Services Practice | ex. McGonigle, P.C., Citizens Financial Group, Capital One
1moAwesome — these perspectives are very much needed and no one has more insightful perspectives than Cloaked.