Oklahoma's Expertise: America's Lost Faith And Trust

In Tom Nichols' article, 'How America Lost Faith in Expertise', he explores the growing phenomenon of disdain for expertise in the United States. Nichols, a professor of national security affairs, argues that Americans are increasingly rejecting the advice of experts, particularly in the realm of public policy. This rejection of expertise is seen as a way to assert autonomy and distance oneself from nefarious elites. Nichols provides examples, such as polls where Americans express strong opinions on foreign interventions without basic geographic knowledge, to illustrate the growing divide between ordinary citizens and intellectual elites. He argues that this trend is not simply a matter of political differences but a deeper issue of Americans embracing ignorance as a virtue. This has led to a breakdown in constructive discourse, with angry shouting matches replacing informed arguments. Nichols warns that the death of expertise threatens the very foundation of democracy and calls for a restoration of mutual respect between citizens and experts.

The rejection of expertise as a symbol of autonomy

The rejection of expertise has become a symbol of demonstrating autonomy, with Americans stepping away from "nefarious elites". This is a way of protecting the fragile ego of the American people, particularly when it comes to issues like public policy. The rejection of expertise is not a shying away from expert claims, but instead, it is indicative of the death of expertise itself. Valid expert opinion is being replaced by the "Google-scholar" and the "Wikipedia-wizard", and a collapse is happening between those with achievement in a specific area or field, and those with nothing more than interest.

This rejection of expertise is not a uniquely American problem, but it is a "frankly, uniquely American problem". The media plays a large role in this, with no restrictions or expectations to publish honestly and with facts and research. Several other nations have laws in place that make it illegal for news sources to deliberately publish lies or "fake news", but America, by virtue of its laws about free speech, absolutely enshrines the right for their media to publish lies, falsehoods, fake news, and propaganda as much as they like. As a result, those who follow specific media outlets are, presumably unknowingly, subsisting on a diet of propaganda while believing it to be true and accurate. This drives the people and politicians to become more and more polarised around their respective media outlets, creating escalating divisions between right and left, between rich and poor, between white and non-white, and between old and young.

The rejection of expertise is also driven by the overabundance of information that is now available at people's fingertips. Many Americans have embraced the idea that they can – and do – know as much about government as public policy experts. This has led to a growing phenomenon of disdain for expertise. Large swaths of Americans have come to reject the role of experts in society, and outright contempt for the specialised knowledge that experts possess has replaced healthy skepticism about their limitations. Feelings and opinions have supplanted facts and knowledge in critical public policy debates.

This is a very bad thing. A modern society cannot function without a social division of labor. No one is an expert on everything. We prosper because we specialize, developing formal and informal mechanisms and practices that allow us to trust one another in those specializations and gain the collective benefit of our individual expertise. If that trust dissipates, eventually both democracy and expertise will be fatally corrupted.

The death of expertise and the rise of Google and Wikipedia

In his article, Tom Nichols explores the phenomenon of Americans' growing disdain for expertise and the consequences for democracy. He argues that this trend goes beyond a healthy skepticism of experts and instead reflects a rejection of established knowledge as a virtue, with individuals expressing strong views on issues they know little about. This problem is exacerbated by the internet, which provides easy access to information but also allows people to bypass experts and form opinions based on limited or misleading sources.

The death of expertise, as Nichols terms it, is not just about people lacking knowledge in specific fields like science or politics. Instead, it's about a broader shift where ignorance, especially regarding public policy, is seen as empowering. Rejecting expert advice becomes a way for Americans to assert their autonomy and protect their egos from being proven wrong. This dynamic has contributed to the polarization and anger prevalent in modern political discourse, with citizens increasingly unwilling to engage in constructive conversations with experts.

The internet, specifically Google and Wikipedia, play a significant role in this decline. While the internet offers unprecedented access to information, it also allows people to sidestep experts and form opinions based on whatever they stumble upon online. The sheer volume of information available can be overwhelming, and people often lack the skills to evaluate the reliability of sources critically. As a result, they may end up relying on Google search results, Wikipedia articles, or social media posts that reinforce their existing biases or confirm their preconceived notions.

This trend has serious implications for democracy. In a healthy democratic society, there is a division of labor, with citizens recognizing their limitations and turning to experts for guidance in specific fields. However, when citizens reject expert advice and insist on making uninformed decisions, democracy falters. Experts, on the other hand, need to acknowledge their mistakes, correct them publicly, and maintain integrity in their respective fields to rebuild trust with the public.

To restore faith in expertise, both citizens and experts have roles to play. Citizens must recognize the value of expertise and actively seek out reliable sources of information, understanding that not all opinions are equally valid. Experts, meanwhile, should embrace transparency, admit their mistakes, and actively work to regain the public's trust.

The absence of metacognition

The problem of metacognition is particularly evident in the rise of "fake news" and the spread of misinformation. Without the ability to reflect on their own cognitive processes, individuals are unable to critically evaluate the information they encounter. This has led to a situation where people are easily influenced by misleading or false information, often spread through social media and other online platforms. They lack the necessary skills to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources, and as a result, they may form opinions based on misinformation or biased interpretations of facts.

Furthermore, the lack of metacognition hinders self-awareness and the ability to recognise one's limitations. In the context of expertise, this means that laypeople may overestimate their own knowledge and competence in certain areas, leading them to reject or dismiss expert opinions. They fail to recognise the boundaries of their own understanding and are unable to acknowledge the value of specialised knowledge. This can be particularly dangerous when it comes to issues such as public health, where the rejection of expert advice can have serious consequences.

Finally, the lack of metacognition contributes to a breakdown in communication between experts and laypeople. Without the ability to reflect on their own cognitive processes, individuals may struggle to understand the perspectives of experts and engage in meaningful dialogue. This further widens the gap between the two groups and makes it difficult to reach a consensus or find solutions to complex problems.

In conclusion, the absence of metacognition is a significant factor in the decline of faith in expertise in America. It contributes to the spread of misinformation, confirmation bias, and a lack of self-awareness. It hinders effective communication between experts and laypeople and ultimately undermines the foundation of a democratic society, which relies on informed citizens and mutual respect between specialists and the general public.

The presence of confirmation bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out information that corroborates what individuals already do, or want to believe. This is one of the major problems that experts are currently battling. Scientists and researchers must grapple with this as a professional hazard on a regular basis—a hazard that they are well-informed about and constantly checking for. But, outside the realm of scholarly articles and peer-reviews, arguments among the normal citizenry exist without any mechanism of external review or accountability. This leads to the coming and going of facts as people find them convenient, making opinions and arguments "unfalsifiable and intellectual progress impossible".

Conspiracy theories are circulated and adopted because they give context and meaning to things that would otherwise be frightening to research. In societies that have suffered collective traumas, they become a mechanism for undermining the interpersonal discourse on which democracy depends. Conspiracy theories feed themselves by being unfalsifiable; when experts contradict them, they are seen as part of the conspiracy.

Easily-obtained confirmation bias, coupled with the constant presence of conspiracy theories, and the complex nature of politics, make things all the more complicated in the U.S. Rooting political views in self-image and belief makes challenging such views a process that is typically resisted by any means necessary, even when the challenge comes from a trusted source or expert.

The role of the internet in accelerating the collapse of communication between experts and laypeople

The internet has played a significant role in accelerating the collapse of communication between experts and laypeople. While it has always been the case that some people don't know a lot about science, politics or geography, the internet has exacerbated this issue by providing an apparent shortcut to erudition.

The internet has accelerated the collapse of communication between experts and laypeople by providing an abundance of information, easily accessible to anyone with a connection. This has resulted in people increasingly turning to the internet for answers, rather than to experts. This has been further encouraged by the convenience of the internet, which provides answers in seconds.

However, the internet is not solely to blame. The digital age has simply accelerated an already existing issue. The media, for example, has long been a source of misinformation, with few restrictions and no legal obligation to publish facts in the US. This has resulted in people unknowingly consuming propaganda and becoming polarised around their respective media outlets.

The internet has also made it easier for people to connect with others who share their beliefs, creating echo chambers and further reinforcing existing biases. This has led to a breakdown in communication between those with differing opinions, including experts and laypeople.

Additionally, the internet has made it easier for people to access conspiracy theories, which provide simple explanations for complex and frightening events. These theories are often unfalsifiable and serve to further undermine trust in experts.

In summary, while the internet has played a significant role in accelerating the collapse of communication between experts and laypeople, it is essential to recognise that it is not the sole cause. The digital age has simply exacerbated pre-existing issues, including media bias and the human tendency to seek out confirming evidence and simplify complex realities.

Frequently asked questions