Experts, Expertise and “Doing the Research”
As a scientist, I’ve got a particular interest in the topic of research (after all, I spent several years of my life being trained in how to do it). And although the specifics of my training relate mainly to the biomedical sciences, the general approach that I was taught can actually be applied towards evaluating almost any objective (fact-based) statement or claim that you might come across.
So let’s say that you hear or read something that you’re not sure is accurate. And let’s also say that you recognize that the topic is outside of your specific area of expertise. Congratulations! By making that decision, you’ve just carried out the first step in effective research, which is recognizing where your own personal expertise starts and stops.
Some very famous studies have shown that the less you know about something, the more you think you know¹. There’s a good explanation for this — if you don’t know much about a subject, it’s easy to underestimate how complex and difficult it is. Real expertise is both narrow and deep and tackles that complexity head on. It starts with a base of knowledge, which is usually built through a period of education or training (and no, just reading a couple of articles unfortunately doesn’t cut it).
But a base of knowledge by itself isn’t enough. To truly be an expert, you also need practical, real-world experience. You need the opportunity to do some actual work in whatever area you aspire to gain expertise in. If you’re a clinical person, you need to work in the clinic. If you’re a researcher, you need to work in the lab or field or library. If you’re a performer, you need to perform. If you’re a tradesperson, you need to get out there and practice your trade.
Both of these things, education and practice, take time and commitment. One popular estimate has been that it takes 10,000 hours of effort to gain true expertise², but really, it turns out to depend on a lot of different factors³. The bottom line, though, is that no one is born an expert in anything. They’ve got to work, and work hard, for it. This is also why the breadth of anyone’s expertise is limited. There just aren’t enough hours in the day (or days in a life) to acquire true expertise in more than a limited number of fields.
But, if you’re not an expert, then how can you develop an informed opinion about that questionable claim? Well, you may not have the expert’s primary knowledge and skills at your fingertips, but you do have access to something else — the actual experts themselves. For every topic you can name, there are people who have done the work and have the expertise. And generally, they are more than happy to share their knowledge and will do so through writing, talks, interviews, and other types of communication. Your problem here, then, won’t be in finding people with something to say about your topic of interest. Instead, the trick will be to sort out the true experts (whom you should listen to) from the chorus of very vocal faux experts (who really may not know any more than you do about the situation).
How to do this? Your first order of business is to assess the so-called expert’s actual expertise. In other words, do the same thing that you should do for a stranger coming to your door claiming to be able to fix your roof — check their credentials. Look at their educational background and their work experience. Have they, in fact, done the time, learned their area, and practiced their craft? Are they associated with centers for excellence in their area? Do they regularly write or speak on the topic? Are they respected by their peers? And watch out for people who claim to be an expert in everything — remember, that’s really just not possible, and those folks are much more likely to turn out, in fact, to be experts in nothing.
But even if an expert’s credentials check out, you’re not quite done. The second thing you want to do is to assess whether or not they’ve got a dog in the fight. Everyone has biases, even the experts. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t listen to what they say, but it does mean that you should ask yourself if their viewpoint is driven, at least in part, by their own personal gain. And if it is, keep that in mind and take what they say with a grain of salt.
And one other thing about experts — they don’t always agree! So, it’s always smart to get a second (or third or fourth) opinion. Imagine that you want to go in for some elective surgery and you ask 100 doctors about whether or not to do it. If 99 say “no” and only 1 says “yes”, should you get up on that table? Probably not. So don’t make the same mistake by climbing on the bandwagon of the one expert who tells you what you want to hear when, in fact, most other experts disagree. Seeking out and then latching on to only those facts and opinions that you like is called confirmation bias, and it can be a very seductive thing. But reality unfortunately doesn’t care what you think or how much you want something to be true (or false as the case may be). Reality is what it is, and if you turn your back on it, it will be highly likely to rear up and sink its teeth into you when you’re not looking. And that will not be a happy experience.
But let’s say you’ve found several experts, checked their credentials and motivation, and evaluated what they have to say (being careful to avoid confirmation bias). As a result, you’ve come to a conclusion about whether or not to accept that original statement as accurate. Are you finished? Not quite! There’s one more step. You need to ask yourself “What potential evidence would make me change my mind?”
Now bear in mind that such evidence might not actually exist. But you need to use your imagination and conjure it up in your head. And here’s the thing — if you can’t think of a single hypothetical piece of objective evidence that would make you change your position, what you have is NOT a well-reasoned opinion. It’s a belief that is unconnected to the facts of the matter. If that doesn’t worry you at least a little, well, go back and re-read the part about reality sinking its teeth into you when you’re not looking.
And if compelling evidence that contradicts your position does materialize, what should you do? It’s easy! You just say the magic words: “I guess I was wrong about that.” There’s absolutely no shame in changing your mind in the face of new information. Being willing to incorporate new evidence into your world view isn’t a sign of weakness, but of strength. This, in fact, is how science routinely works. We make a guess, test it, and then modify our thinking based on the results. The result is, well, progress.
So go and “do the research”. Think for yourself and form your own opinions. But when you do, do it right. Accurately assess you own expertise (or lack thereof). Find out what the actual experts have to say (after, of course, you verify their credentials and look to see if they have a dog in the fight). Check with multiple sources and watch out for confirmation bias — don’t just go with what makes you the most comfortable. And finally, think critically about your conclusions and be ready to modify them if and when new information comes to light.
¹Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77 6, 1121–34 .
²Gladwell M. (2008) Outliers: The Story of Success. Little, Brown and Company; San Francisco, CA.
³Macnamara B.N., & Maitra, M. (2019) The role of deliberate practice in expert performance: revisiting Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer (1993). R. Soc. open sci.6190327 http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190327
