There are myriad examples of too much of a good thing. (No, I’m not thinking that I waste too much time blogging. That has already been confirmed.) My question is: to what degree is gluttony a problem in education? Or, more specifically, with the acquisition of specialized knowledge?
It seems to me that overconsumption of knowledge can have at least four counterproductive—even dangerous—consequences. All related.
- Specialized knowledge is a complementary good. The more you know about a particular discipline, the more it is helpful to have a broader understanding of interrelated disciplines. Intuition tells us to trust experts, but often expert analysis alone loses the context.
- Specialization, passion and commitment to a subject-area are endogenously related and existence of one tends to exponentiate the effect of the others. This can lead to a bias toward results over truth.
- Relative expertise can be wielded like a weapon with the result—intended or not—of intimidating, terrorizing and coercing non-experts. This is especially dangerous when it is unintentional and well-meaning or if an individual is unaware of her authority or influence.
- Relative expertise and authority can be like an addictive drug, leading to self-delusion and self-destructive behavior.
I’m quite aware these points seem extreme. I’m thinking of them in the most subtle form. They seem most obvious when an individual first starts a profession or begins to focus her efforts. But they are encountered daily in the media, among peers, from leadership, teachers….
Of course, alternatively, knowledge is just unambiguously good.
5 comments:
Are you serious? No single person makes any decision in policy or government. Decisionmakers are allowed to be thoughtful and skeptical consumers of information, and if they aren't hopefully their assistants are. It sounds like you're underlying concern might be that the non-experts aren't smart enough to use and filter through expert's opinions (which I would argue can definitely be a good thing -- how else have we found cures to diseases, etc) to society's benefit. I am optimistic enough to disagree.
Non-experts filtering through expert opinions cures polio? I don't follow.
I think collective decision making under these conditions might be even more threatening--pack mentality and what not. Although, there might not be a better alternative.
I'm more concerned about how exactly public opinion and conventional wisdom is developed.
My point was that no experts/no specialized knowledge = no cures for polio.
The fact that no expert rules the world means that he/she can't become as "dangerous" as you fear -- that's why I mention the role of others.
I believe that knowledge, including very specific knowledge, is a very good thing. What is your solution for how public opinion and conventional wisdom are developed? It seems to me that having people and policy makers sorting through information researched and produced by experts works pretty well. Removing the experts from that equation would be a net negative.
It's not clear to me exactly what you are arguing.
While you stated "counter productive...consequences," should they maybe stated as unintended? What I'm getting at is mentioned quite a bit in Harford's new book: rational decisions by individuals can have unintentional and pejorative effects on the community/majority. It seems very rational (on an individual level) for individuals to seek specialized knowledge for job marketability and pure joy for the subject studied. However, these rational choices may lead to the consequences you state. Is this what you are getting at?
I am not suggesting that knowledge or the pursuit of knowledge is bad. I am suggesting that the influence of expertise is strong and that one-dimensional expertise can be mishandled.
I think JD’s point about rational choice is a good one. We tend to think experts are, on average, correct. However, few experts reside around the median. Most experts, especially academics, tend to pursue radical views. On average, these radical views cancel each other out (give or take). But those with the most radical views will tend to be most vocal. Therefore, any single encounter with an expert is likely to have a large magnitude of error around the consensus view. So, while our rational response is to take experts at their word, a single experience with an expert (through a newspaper article, speech, class, casually, etc.) is not likely to be representative. I guess this implies that the solution is to trust experts on average, but maintain a healthy dose of skepticism toward individuals. It’s a problem of micronumerosity.
Secondly, this implies that the prudent, altruistic *expert* would be wise to explore related disciplines outside of his/her expertise, be aware of potential publicationesque type biases, and tone down radical rhetoric, at least initially.
Of course, this could also be either a completely ridiculous or incredibly obvious point. Or both.
Post a Comment