How to use experts—and when not to - Noreena Hertz

Summary

The speaker challenges our reliance on experts, highlighting the dangers of surrendering personal decision-making to their authority. Through examples, they illustrate the fallibility of experts and the need for skepticism. The talk advocates for a more democratic approach to expertise, encouraging managed dissent and embracing diverse perspectives to foster smarter decision-making in a complex world.

Takeaways

• 😣 We often rely on experts for decisions, especially when the stakes are high, due to our belief in their ability to process complex information better than we can.
• 🤔 The speaker suggests that our dependence on experts can be problematic, as it may lead to a surrender of our own decision-making capabilities.
• 🧠 An experiment mentioned in the script indicates that listening to experts can actually deactivate the part of the brain responsible for independent decision-making.
• 😅 Experts are not infallible; they can and do make mistakes, which can have significant consequences, as illustrated by examples from the medical and financial sectors.
• 🔍 The speaker advocates for a more critical approach to expertise, encouraging individuals to question and challenge what experts say.
• 🌐 The world of experts is described as often being insular, with dominant perspectives that can stifle dissenting opinions and slow the pace of paradigm shifts.
• 💊 The influence of social and cultural norms on experts is highlighted, showing how these norms can lead to outdated or harmful practices.
• 💼 The role of financial interests in shaping expert opinions is pointed out, with examples of how funding can bias research findings.
• 🤯 The speaker proposes three strategies for dealing with experts: challenging them, creating space for dissent, and democratizing expertise.
• 🗣️ Encouraging dissent and managing it effectively can lead to smarter decision-making by incorporating diverse and discordant views.
• 🌟 The script concludes with a call to redefine expertise, suggesting that it should not be limited to those with formal qualifications but should include the knowledge and insights of everyday people.

Q & A

What is the main issue the speaker addresses regarding the reliance on experts?

The speaker addresses the issue of over-reliance on experts, suggesting that people have become addicted to their certainty and definitiveness, which has led to a ceding of personal responsibility and decision-making power to these experts.

What does the speaker suggest happened to the brain during an experiment when listening to experts?

The speaker suggests that during an experiment, when adults listened to experts, the parts of their brains responsible for independent decision-making literally flatlined, indicating a cessation of critical thinking and an acceptance of the experts' advice without question.

What is the consequence of relying too heavily on experts according to the speaker?

The consequence of relying too heavily on experts, as per the speaker, is the potential for dangerous outcomes for society and individuals, as it leads to a surrendering of one's intellect and the illusion of certainty provided by experts, even when they may be wrong.

Why does the speaker believe that experts can be problematic?

The speaker believes experts can be problematic because they often form rigid camps with a dominant perspective that silences opposition, they are influenced by the social and cultural norms of their times, and they can be swayed by financial interests, leading to biased outcomes.

What examples does the speaker provide to illustrate that experts can make mistakes?

The speaker provides examples such as doctors missing diagnoses, tax advisors making errors in tax returns, and financial experts contributing to a severe recession, to illustrate that experts are not infallible and can make significant mistakes.

What strategies does the speaker propose to deal with the challenges of relying on experts?

The speaker proposes strategies such as being ready to question experts, creating space for managed dissent, and redefining who is considered an expert to include a more diverse range of perspectives, thereby promoting a more democratic approach to expertise.

What does the speaker mean by 'managed descent'?

By 'managed descent,' the speaker means creating an environment where expert ideas are openly debated and challenged, allowing for the inclusion of diverse and even dissenting views, which can lead to breakthroughs and the destruction of outdated paradigms.

How does the speaker suggest redefining the concept of experts?

The speaker suggests redefining the concept of experts by embracing democratized expertise, which means recognizing the value of knowledge and insights from individuals beyond those with traditional markers of expertise, such as advanced degrees or high-status positions.

What is the role of dissent in the speaker's view on dealing with experts?

In the speaker's view, dissent plays a crucial role as it challenges the prevailing ideas and encourages the consideration of alternative viewpoints, which can lead to smarter decision-making and the evolution of thought.

What is the speaker's stance on the use of experts in the 21st century?

The speaker advocates for a more critical and discerning use of experts, suggesting that while they can be helpful, it is essential to be aware of their limitations and to maintain one's own capacity for independent decision-making.

How does the speaker describe the current societal attitude towards experts?

The speaker describes the current societal attitude as one of blind acceptance and trust in experts, which they argue is not conducive to facing the complex challenges of the 21st century and needs to change.