The Demise of the Expert
Oct 28, 2009 
Tyler Pease 
9 Comments
The idea of an “expert” is simple enough: one who spends time studying and practicing a particular field in order to gain more knowledge in that field than the average person. This “learning” could include personal education through extensive research or hands-on experience, possibly with higher level education through a university or some similar program. The source from which knowledge of an area is drawn really doesn’t matter. But what is vital to the essence of being an “expert” is the level of competency with which one can speak or work within an area of study. “Experts” are people to be trusted (generally—many experts have egos and ulterior motives, of course) and their advice is more valuable than that of someone who is merely an amateur dabbler in a subject. We trust experts everyday without giving a second thought to them: experts write our prescriptions and deliver our children, repair our cars, and even sometimes predict the weather with relative accuracy. They are vital in many ways to the comfort of our way of life. Without them, many of the structures of our society would deteriorate and likely collapse.
With all of this in mind, it is puzzling then—perhaps even worrying—to note that experts are oftentimes disregarded in today’s super-connected society, as elitists. Trying to enter a debate in which you can claim to be expert can actually be damaging to your viewpoints when, thanks to the internet, practically everyone can look up a piece of information via the search engine du jour and parrot to their heart’s content, regardless of the validity of whatever they may be spouting and without intimate knowledge of mitigating factors.
It isn’t difficult to find examples of this kind of discrimination against those who are better educated than most. The feeling of fear that stubbornly impedes the adminstration of viral vaccinations for children is one of many examples. Historically, parental worries that vaccines cause autism in infants has led people to question the relative safety of receiving a vaccine as opposed to merely getting the disease. This has resulted in parents choosing to avoid vaccinating their children and instead, in some extreme cases as with the disease of 2009, H1N1, parents have attempted to keep their children safe by arranging swine flu “parties”; the assumption here is that by exposing their child to the flu as it is now, the parent would be giving them an immunity to a potentially worse version of the disease that may mutate in the future. This practice has been heavily and hurriedly denounced by health professionals the world over, but though no evidence of any swine “parties” has yet been made public, past occurrences of measles and chicken pox parties suggest that swine parties have already taken place.
Having a “swine flu party” is “a big mistake” –Richard Besser, Acting Head of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Opposition to vaccination is not new, and became especially pronounced after the mass vaccinations of 1976 against a different strain of swine flu turned out to be false alarms. However, though some educated physicians believe there may by truth in the arguments against vaccines, the majority of professional opinion clearly lies with vaccination. Unfortunately, this may not even matter; as the mission statement for WAVE (The World Association for Vaccine Education), an anti-vaccine organization, states, “The World Association for Vaccine Education (WAVE) promotes independent thinking, personal responsibility, and social evolution.” The keys to this mission statement—independent thinking, personal responsibility, and social evolution—sound good on paper. But in reality, is it best for the patient to “independently” decide their own care? It is common sense that it should be medical and chemical professionals, not the average Joe, who judge the safety of vaccines.
A cartoon accuses President Obama of being a "Snob"
Opposition to Barack Obama’s campaign was a highly visible example of a pervasive anti-intellectualism, particularly in conservative America. His position as a lecturer/professor of law at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004 is well known; he could be considered an expert of the law. In addition, it seems obvious that a good candidate for President would be one well versed in law and government. Why, then, would it seem an asset for conservatives to point out this fact as if it were a negative and a blemish on his reputation? Pat Buchanan, a political commentator for MSNBC who makes little effort to hide his conservative viewpoint, said concerning Obama’s appearance of elitism, “He’s like the guys in the Harvard faculty lounge. They don’t know anything about their country.” When being a member of the Harvard faculty becomes something to be ashamed of, it would seem that scholarship and gravitas has been defeated by the hackneyed politics of “relatability.”
This general enmity towards the intellectual is likely fueled both by envy for the wealthy and by the popular belief that to gain money one must have stolen it from someone else, and therefore has poor values, different from those of the rest of the populace. It is no surprise that education and “expertness” has a strong positive correlation to financial success, so then it should be no surprise that intellectualism would be related to a disconnect with the interests of the rest of the public. This concept isn’t new. It’s been used to denounce political opponents by countless candidates since the rise of Jacksonian Democracy and the politics of the “common man” in the early nineteenth century. However, the prevalence of anti-elitism in the past is not an excuse for that which exists in the present. It’s been over a century and a half since Jacksonian Democracy arose, sufficient time to realize that experience in a field actually has value.
Perhaps the demise of the expert has been going on for far longer than it seems and we’ve just overlooked it. Perhaps it is only the recent invention of the internet and its ability to propagate unchecked, untested rumors around the globe as fast as they can be typed that has brought to light the general misinformation of the world. And perhaps it is time for many of us to acknowledge that some people just know more about stuff than we do, and we should trust them to make good decisions.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raster/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Related posts:
- Race to the Top: the Obama Approach to Educational Reform Nearly a year in office plagued by the economic collapse and now focused on the fiery debate over health care...
- The Year in Review 2009, Part 3: Culture and the Media With the first month of 2010 coming to a close, we're back to present the final chapter of the Year...
- A Paperless World “When I was your age and we needed to know something, we looked for it in books…books!” Sorry Mom, but...
Sources
The sources listings have been temporarily disabled due to a performance issued which caused major slowdowns. A fix is being worked on and we hope to reactivate the sources as soon as possible.
Subscribe via Email
Subscribe via RSS
Follow @acadperspective on Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
I commend everybody who has been working on this site. It has clearly taken all of you a lot of time, hard work and dedication. However, there were a few things I noticed in this article (and a few others) that could use some work.
First of all, quotes. This article could and should be full of quotes that the journalist got through interviews. With an article like this, it is not hard to find somebody who’s knowledge, occupation, interests or point of view are relevant to the topic. A doctor, perhaps – maybe even your own physician – could talk to you about the H1N1 vaccine. Ask friends and acquaintances whether they or somebody they know is planning to avoid the H1N1 vaccine or voted against Obama in the election. Ask the people with these views for an interview. The worst case scenario they’ll say that they don’t want to be interviewed, but chances are you’ll find somebody who is willing to talk to you.
Secondly, phrasing is everything. Take, for example, the comments in this article about swine flu parties. According to the article, “This practice has been heavily and hurriedly denounced by health professionals the world over, but though no evidence of any swine ‘parties’ has yet been made public, past occurrences of measles and chicken pox parties suggest that swine parties have already taken place.” How do measle and chicken pox parties suggest that swine flu parties have already occured if there is no other evidence? Measle and chicken pox parties may suggest that there is a high likelyhood that there are people who are inclined to hold swine , but if you’re going to say that swine flu parties have probably already happened, you need to support that statement. As written, the sentence suggests that guessing that “already taken place” might be a bit of a leap.
This is a long response and I know it’s a lot of criticism to take, but don’t get me wrong, you’ve clearly worked hard and, for a beginning journalist, it’s an okay article. I encourage you to learn both from what you did well and what you did badly. You clearly did at least a decent amount of research. Next time I encourage you to do more. And talk to people. If you can find an expert whose knowledge is relevant to your story, talk to him or her! Use a phonebook if you have to. As somebody who is usually very shy when talking to strangers, I understand that it can be difficult, but you’d be surprised at how willing people are to talk about something they know and care about. In fact, Jake Silberg, who, I noticed, is writing for you guys, is actually one of the people who helped me realize that and get over some of my discomfort with going out and annoying people until they talk to me.
Thank you Eva for your criticism. It isn’t too much.
In reference to your specific points, this piece was a commentary piece, not an article intended to present news or even a thesis paper. It is merely something to present my ideas, with a little evidence, to produce a discussion. As you may see in the comments below yours some discussion has taken place, though most people there seem to be in agreement with the primary focus of the article and as a result the conversation isn’t very heated.
In the future, I’d be glad to look for more, direct sources if you and the rest of the readers desire them.
This article from the New Yorker is very relevant to this topic.
I will keep this short, since this is totally off the topic of the article. Maybe something like this exists elsewhere. As I said, all my claims are based on what Google can find. Which is nothing. I did find a few site hastily made on Blogger which had 5 posts and then died several years ago. Search for “how did wall street collapse 2007-2009″. We’re hit #2, right after Wikipedia. Maybe something else is out there, but I can’t seem to find it. And if I can’t find it, how will other people?
Hey all of these articles are fantastic guys i applaud what your doing this is amazing. Although about your description…..and the whole nothing like this has ever been done before?………like what students getting together and making a website to express their opinions….i mean i guarantee that this exists somewhere else. Especially college kids, they live for this kinda stuff, just wanted to ask where your getting that information. This isn’t me bashing you though guys this is truly well done.
Justin, it just proves that politics is very much founded on spinning information to aid a particular cause. His extensive civics education should give one a window into his understanding of government, especially considering he attended one of the most prestigious universities worldwide.
And I remember hearing something similar Donald. It’s really scary, and compounding the problem is the cultural stigma attached to being an “intellectual,” if you can even call it that.
A case in point: the shunning of experts, especially when it comes to professional medical advice, is commonplace in many an African community for example. The AIDS infection rate has exploded due to the popularly held belief that having sex with a virgin is the cure for the disease.
P.S: I liked the article.
I remember, last year during the elections, hearing on the radio and interview in which the question was asked, “Do you want the president of the United States to be smarter than you?” The person, an average joe calling in, responded, “No.”
Scary…
Anyway, I enjoyed this article, good work.
I’ve been thinking about this since I heard it discussed on Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me during the 2008 election. You’ve articulated the problem beautifully. As the WWDTM panelists remarked, why wouldn’t we want someone better than us running out government? If I wanted someone like me, I’d run for president.
The Buchanan comment is quite troubling. I find it funny that the same people who were pointing out Obama’s appearance of elitism were also the same people who pointed out his lack of experience during the Democrat primaries (compared to Hillary).