Just trust me. Trust the experts.

Enter a culture of accreditation and specialization. A culture full of experts inching at the bit to be called upon to flex their prowess and intellectual ability. We look up to experts for things we are not very well versed on or capable of. We set up gatekeepers of knowledge and flock to them when we need something. We have built institutional empires on the pillars of specialized expertise. We just do not have the time or the energy to be an expert on everything. Whatever that means.

We are taught to respect experts. We are taught to TRUST them. What do we even know? "Expert" at the end of the day is just a term. It's like a master and a domesticate. What makes a master of something? Expert and master are both static terms that contains quite a bit or ambiguity and interpretation. If you can sense that an expert might be wrong, we can challenge them, but most of the time we are cast into a fire of judgment and criticism. Who are we to question someone's biased experiences and knowledge? We may not be able to challenge an expert, but the act of skepticism is healthy and should be encouraged for the sake of discovering new knowledge and opportunities.

An expert does not mean trustworthy. 
Correlation does not equal causation. 

Experts do not live in a vacuum. Experts in theory should improve through competition, dialogue and the willingness to accept challenging viewpoints. An expert who is so CERTAIN about his or her views will eventually degrade and not be open to new information that may conflict the views they hold. There is nothing more fatalistic than an expert that is dogmatic. The expert must always be learning. The expert must always be skeptical. An expert should be seen as a privilege, but also a load to bear when facing new information in their worldview no matter how debilitating it might feel if they end up being wrong.

"Expert" should always be in quotation marks. Take it with a grain of salt and let them speak. Do not take everything they say as gospel until you have received many other views from people in their field. 

Saying an expert should be a certain way is subjective and ultimately limiting and clouding the definition. At what point can we stop classifying an expert as an expert? When they spew out false information? When they become dogmatic? These are all questions that might not even have any concrete answers.

Experts have been sold to us as pillars of authority. We look up to them. We again "trust" them. The main thing is that we choose to believe them as an authority. It is also in the tacit acceptance of the meaning we give to to the term and concept. Authority is only as powerful as the attention and belief we give to it. There was a point where someone was not an "expert". An expert is beholden to past experiences and knowledge. We cannot know everything about these so called experts. We only see a small glimpse into who they are and not read their minds or intentions. In a way when we define someone as an expert, we are limiting that person's infallibility and humanity. An expert is a person at first. At what point do we start placing the expert label as a higher and more important identity?

Experts rely on a hierarchy that is tied to a subjective yet objective process of measurement. A measurement of time, experience and past work. We may calculate an expert by hours, years or the amount of knowledge they hold, but we tend to have a real limited view of what the definition means. One person's classification of what an expert is may not align with the standards of another. From that arises conflict. From that conflict a tension is born and people tend to become defensive and not listen. When their preconception is in alignment with that they hear, alarms go off and armor is put on.

An expert with a narrative is exactly that. An expert with a narrative and an agenda. 

Believing people because they call themselves experts is problematic. Who are we to judge? Who are they to call themselves experts? The facts and information in context are the most important parts of dialogue. Just trusting an expert because of their credentials and experience is delusional on many levels. We are projectors for our own insecurities.

Ask Yourself:
1. Why do I call this person an expert?
2. Am I only listening because I think he or she is an expert?
3. Does the idea of this person being an expert influence the way I think or view the world?
4. Is it constructive to call a person an expert if in reality it's only the facts or "truth" that matters?
5. Am I willing to admit that I am or the person I use to believe is wrong?

We tend to gravitate towards experts that confirm our own biases. If we see or hear an expert talking about something we agree with already then we might not even question the information they are giving us. If we like what they are saying and it matches our conditioned perception, we go along with it. This is where we can create a potential for conflict. When we shut off the world to our own little distorted world view, we fall prey to be indoctrinated. Not letting in new information that challenges the paradigm you believe in can be hurtful and disorientating in the long term. People are easily influenced and can easily be swept up in a wave of "mob rule mentality". Any challenge to the orthodoxy of expertise creates a friction that gets people tribal and emotional. We are so eager to set up false dichotomies that we write people off without fully investing with what they have to say.

What happened to changing our minds and perception with new information given to us? We cling so hard to be right that we end of defending falsehoods in order to feel better about ourselves. 

In all seriousness, the validity of experts shouldn't matter if we are open to change or update our old views for the new factual information placed in front of us. Someone that we trusted for an expert for a long time may present some false information even if it wasn't intended to mislead. If the expert doesn't come to terms with his or her mistakes, they get caught in a trap. Some experts place their reputation and past experience higher than reason. Funny how we can be so eager to hold onto lies when it means that our status might be threatened. A grasp for relevancy is a deceptive and
delusional view to hold.

When you have an open mind and you are able to truly listen, you can separate the expert from the information. Why just listen to one expert? Listen to more people you disagree with. Take a sample of the spectrum of experts. Seek out different views and let the information soak in without making immediate conclusions. Take all the competing information play and act with the best of your abilities. You may not hold a tight view of something which is not a bad thing. The key is intellectual flexibility and not thrusting your view on the rest of the world. You may not know who to trust, but you will know more than you did before with an open mind for new information. Once you start to get defensive of your view, you descend into unconsciousness and get lost in a realm of conflicting dogma.

Everyone has something to say even if it feels off or absurd on its face. What can you take away from someone who holds a challenging view? How can we improve our understanding of the world around us? This is the key. We shouldn't be so concerned with that credentials of individuals. When we focus so much on that it turns in an Appeal to Authority fallacy. The facts are the most important thing to bring to light. When we get so wrapped up in the title of expert, we miss the mark.

DG