This is definitely a flaw in your reasoning. This one suggests to me that you lack an effective measurement for understanding “expertise”, and have replaced it with silly, convenient nonsense. “A natural talent for understanding people”? How does one measure a “natural talent for understanding people” in such a way as to define potential expertise? By approximation? Whimsy?

This is the sort of typical thing that leads to extreme overconfidence in extreme incompetence. “Oh, I don’t need to adhere to any standards set up by the gatekeepers of expertise in this particular field, I simply need to rely on my confidence that I possess a ‘natural talent for it’.”

As a person masquerading as patient and serious, you must know how weak that appears.

You’ve spent an unbelievable amount of time in these reply chains, but it all collapses under the weight of this flaw. Your inability to effectively understand the value of expertise — and the actual ways in which one can obtain it and be defined by it — makes the rest of your keyboard diarrhea useless and connotes a profound lack of seriousness.

This entire “controversy” is a chicken-and-egg question being perpetuated by media personalities and bored people on the internet such as yourself. There is no “self-actualized expertise” here. It is just nonsense and bluster, of which you’ve contributed a considerable amount to no effect, as is the typical mileage. You should type less, go outside more, and engage yourself in dialectic with people who actually are codified experts in their field so that you understand the value of gate kept expertise and the basic ways in which intellectual discourse actually function, as you fail spectacularly here.

    Matthew’s Workshop

    Written by

    “What does a fish know about the water in which he swims all his life?”