Too many experts and opinions not enough nuance and expertise
In 2016, Steve Pinker’s claim that we were living in exceptionally peaceful times gained widespread attention. Following the release of his book, “The better Angels of our Nature”, which explores the reasons behind the decline of violence and torture has declined over the past 10,000 years, he was invited to speak at numerous forums and universities. To support his argument, he examines evidence from the Neolithic era to the presetnt.
Many found the conversation enlightening and several world leaders quoted him to boost their supporter’s morale. However, there is a slight problem. Steve Pinker is not a historian. He is a Cognitive Psychologist and Psycholinguist, whose specialty is visual cognition and developmental linguistics. How does a cognitive psychologist become a popularly quoted historian? Perhaps, have a PHD from Harvard or write a best-selling book on why violence has declined.
In the past, experts were those that had extensive knowledge in a particular field. Today, an expert could be anyone with a camera, platform or mic. No credentials necessary. From Trump encouraging people to drink hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid, a drug commonly used to treat malaria, to Greta Thunberg, a climate activist, speaking on CNN about Covid’s long term effects with no real background in virology, mass media is flooded with ‘experts’ without expertise.
In today’s world, the ease of global communication through a phone camera makes it simpler than ever to share beliefs, opinions, or concerns about almost anything. Though there is nothing inherently wrong with this, there is a problem when people act on such beliefs. When someone with a substantial following tells people that Covid-19 is no worse than the common cold, which caused many people to get seriously ill or die, then we have a huge problem. When such people speak on current events or any topic without expertise, it leaves very little room for nuance, cross examination and in-depth analysis.
In the digital age, we often interpret and analyze information through the perspectives of influential people. Whether it’s an influencer, commentator, or political pundit, these individuals have the power to validate or challenge our beliefs. With most people engaging with content that confirms their beliefs, there is limited exposure to information that can challenge their perspectives, creating a political vacuum. To further add to this problem, the digital landscape has become cluttered with non-objective information and personal viewpoints, which often blurs the line between facts and fiction causing misinformation and oversimplification.
Situations can occur when people act on the information they were given even if it’s fictional. People engaging with misinformation and viewing it as factual may feel the need to act out irrationally or make misguided decisions. The perfect example of this is the ‘pizza gate’ controversy. A young man began shooting in a pizza shop acting on his belief that there was a pedophilia ring, and several kids were being held hostage at the pizza shop. This man acted based on a long-standing conspiracy theory that Democratic party insiders were harboring child sex slaves in Washington D.C. at a pizza parlor.
The widespread availability of information and the difficulty in controlling how and what information is disseminated makes it difficult to discern fact from fiction. Political pundits discuss geopolitical issues with limited understanding of the historical framework that fuels many of the world’s conflicts and the global economy. Both conservative and liberal commentators rarely give a wholistic perspective on today’s events. The lack of nuance creates a further schism between followers from both sides, where either side is incapable of fully understanding the other. Since the days of using people with real expertise have disappeared, television, news and radio networks resort to using people that will bring a large audience. Having someone with 1.2 million followers on Instagram whose research is primarily focused on quantum physics speak on the geopolitical landscape on the African content is more valuable to news networks than someone with a PHD in African studies, as the former would gather much more viewers than the latter.
To complicate this issue further, attention spans have been shrinking causing an increasing number of people to prefer receiving information in bite size pieces. As a result, journalists, political pundits and commentators often feel pressure to deliver more sensational news and opinions as these tend to receive more traction on social media than objective, nuanced discussions. However, these snippets of information seldom provide a complete picture. Many networks operate on the assumption that their audiences are unlikely to thoroughly research or fully examine the information that they were given. If that were to happen, our world would be less polarized.
Misinformation spreads like cancer, infecting those who are either lazy, not well-educated or simply lack interest in delving into the information they are being fed. Many media networks often validate their audiences’ views even if it means feeding their viewers inaccurate information or presenting radically different interpretations of world events. Grifters make provocative statements on social media often provoking outrage with their onlookers responding either in agreement, shock or disapproval. Nevertheless, there is always a response. News networks often filter out relevant information for a “good story”, knowing very well what the effect will be. Its audience is too busy, too lazy, or too moved by the story to dig deeper and research themselves. People share one fact that was taken from a scientific study and take it at face value without ever reading the study themselves. There are quasi experts in history, biology, psychology, climate change and politics that lack in-depth knowledge of the domain they are discussing on public platforms, yet their viewers take them at their word.
How we are informed is predicated on where we obtain our information from. This has never been more evident than than the current digital era we are in. Before, dissent and opinions were usually kept in the privacy of one’s home or at social events. The most contrast in political views we would be exposed to was through televisions, newspapers, and the radio or at public events where activists and politicians spoke to large audiences. Today, we have the ability to see millions of viewsnfluential people were experts, politicians, and a few celebrities. Though, this was true even before this generation, we have never lived in a world that has been as polarizing as it is now. The rise of influencersps people on entirely different ends of the spectrum, where is rather overwhelming to have to keep up with every argument, prediction, event and people’s personal takes on them. The topics of abortion, vaccines, climate change, policies, war, aid, sexuality and gender never leave the stage but take on different forms. One such example is feminism. Some argue that the feminist movement affected had more of a negative effect on women than a positive. While others argue that there is still much left to be done. What if both sides are right? What if the feminist movement has both good and bad effects in our society but more could still be done. Does the two have to be mutually exclusive? Contrary to popular belief, for every debate topic that exists, there is a middle ground.
Similarly, climate change activists consistently remind us of our impending doom. However, the eco-apocalyptic predictions have been inaccurate for more than 50 years, which many climate naysayers have pointed out. What if instead of making predictions every year of when coastal cities will sink and all forms of life will cease to exist, experts explain the science behind climate change and what is causing the earth’s temperatures to rise. If climate change skeptics closely istened to climate scientists explanation, then perhaps hey If youre like me, you find it hard to argue that climate change doesn’t exist but also find it hard to believe that the world would end in 2040.
The rise of non-experts having significant influence in the digital age has profound implications. Since anyone with a platform can share their views, this has a created an environment where misinformation can flourish leading to real world consequences. To sucesfully navigate the digital landscape, it is important to recognize the value of true expertise, and critically evaluate the information we consume.
To foster a culture that values depth over brevity, it is our responsibility to seek out and prioritize objective, well researched viewpoints. By doing so, we can bridge the divide created by misinformation and sensationalism. This is the only way we can navigate the challenges of our time with wisdom and integrity.