David H. Freedman is a science and business journalist who has written for the Atlantic, Newsweek, The New York Times, Science, and Harvard Business Review.
So what?
It only means he is one of umpteen experts we consult everyday about stocks, diets, cancer treatment, raising our kids, who to vote for, best places to eat, and whether or not the economy is about to go bust. The only problem, according to Freedman, is that we shouldn’t trust any of them – not even him. Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us – And How to Know When Not to Trust Them warns us that when it comes to evaluating the merits of expert advice, we are the proverbial suckers born every minute. Deserving or not, we apply the word “expert” to anyone claiming to have more of a clue than we do about life’s complexities.
Freedman is hip to the irony of claiming such expertise; he even devotes a chapter to being skeptical of him. Despite the disclaimer, his argument has merit. It’s hard to sort out which experts to trust – or rather, who really qualifies as an expert – because we are prone to thinking errors like The Certainty Principle. We trust advice from someone who sounds confident when delivering it, even when we have good reason for doubt. A case in point: imagine two medical experts on back pain. One examines you and says:
I’ve seen many cases just like yours, and it’s usually very hard to say exactly what’s wrong […], I really can’t predict what, if anything, is likely to work for you. I sug- gest we try treatment A, which usually doesn’t work but which at least tends to work slightly more often on patients like you than do any of the other treatments. Another doctor examines you, gives a quick diagnosis, and claims that treatment B will easily do the trick. When asked which doctor they would choose, most people select the second. But, doctor is the one who gets no respect.
Get the idea? We prefer the advice of Number Two because it was delivered with great confidence, even if it sounds too good to be true. The example highlights another common error – we prefer advice confirming what we want to hear. How else to explain the current big, bungling financial crisis? Go ahead!
You can afford that enormous third mortgage; housing prices will only go up!
“Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken,” according to Bertrand Russell in one of many quotes Freedman sprinkles throughout his text. And that’s before he gets to the part on consultants.
In these profit-driven, competitive times, even researchers can’t afford to be wrong, though they may have to fudge a bit. If you’re awarded a million dollars to demonstrate that X leads to Y and the pesky data just won’t oblige… that’s why computers have delete keys, right? Or, give those uncooperative white mice in your lab a black Magic Marker treatment: see Freedman’s chapter entitled, The Trouble with Scientists.
The Internet poses its own problems where good advice is “swamped by an exponentially larger array of useless, misleading, and generally subpar stuff.” High-profile financial gurus? The more faddish the faux-wisdom, the better! “But it leads to cutting corners on all the other things you have to do to build a company that’s going to be successful in the long run.avid H. Freedman Litt
lIf you were told one of these doctors had recently been named Wisest Orthopedist the Year by the state orthopedic society while the other was known to his colleagues be- hind his back as Bozo the Orthopedist, which would you guess is which? Almost everyone guesses without hesitation that the second
It’s not that we should get rid of experts all together. We need people who devote time to complex issues. We must simply develop our own abilities for separating good advice from bad. Freedman’s handy list of eleven things to watch out for is a good start. You can trust me on that. FbN