Should you trust the "learned expert"?
We're always getting "expert" advice. Yet the fallibility of so-called experts is legendary. Here is a quick tool you can use to determine which experts you can trust, and which experts you should view with a healthy dose of skepticism.
In his brilliant and disturbing book House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth, author Robyn Dawes discusses how we learn. "Two conditions are important for experiential learning: One, a clear understanding of what constitutes an incorrect response or error in judgment, and two, immediate, unambiguous and consistent feedback when such errors are made," Dawes says.
Experiential learning is how we learn to walk, talk, and drive a car, for example. With learning to drive a car, there is a clear expectation: you must drive between the lines on the correct side of the road. And we get immediate feedback when we do it wrong as we try to correct the direction of the car by making adjustments to the steering wheel. 99.9% of us are not expert drivers coming out the gate. It can take months - even years - to become a skilled driver. Examples of bona fide experts we can trust are chemists , engineers, and chess masters - those who have loads of empirical, scientific data they have tested for themselves and on which they base their findings and skill. Chemists, for example, consistently produce the same results from experiments. Engineers can predict with a high degree of accuracy when a structure will fail, and chess masters will consistently beat you. Experience is a great way to learn chemistry, engineering, or chess.
Many experts learned their craft without the benefit of either a clear expectation of what success is, nor the benefit of receiving immediate feedback about the results of their efforts. Walter Freeman is an example of someone considered to be an "expert" at one time. A graduate from two of the most prestigious schools in the country - Yale and the University of Pennsylvania Medical School - he was president of the American Association of Neuropathologists, president of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association.
Freeman developed a theory that a specific procedure - the lobotomy - would be beneficial for mentally ill patients. Unlike the experts above, Freeman's theory was not easily falsifiable. He did not conduct double-blind tests where post-procedure results were compared to a control group. Instead, Freeman relied on his observations of the patients and his clinical judgment (training, experience, and education) to judge whether the treatment helped the patient. (Click here to watch a clip from PBS's "The Lobotomist" that shows how Freeman ignored the failures of his procedures, or watch another clip below.)
It was a relatively simple procedure. A hammer was used to drive an ice pick through the back of the eye socket to perform a transorbital lobotomy. Freeman performed over 3000 of these procedures, including on 23-year-old Rosemary Kennedy who along with many other people, was permanently disabled as a result. Freeman even performed the operation on children, including an eighteen-month-old infant and a twelve-year-old boy named Howard Dully who wrote a book called My Lobotomy about how the procedure ruined his life. It was not until a drug called Thorazine was developed that the practice fell out of favor. Freeman continued to perform lobotomies despite the fact that several of his patients died. His license, however, was ultimately revoked.
Unfortunately, many "experts" are no more scientific in their approach than Freeman was. They base their expertise on years of experience, training, and education, even their professional affiliations. Yet they have no empirical data to support their theories. Freeman had all the credentials of the "expert." He graduated from the best schools, had years of experience, and was president of the leading professional groups of his day. But was indeed no expert at all.
Decision-Making Best Practice #16: Trust those experts who predictions and theories are testable and falsifiable. Experts who base their expertise on their education, training, and experience rather than empirical results should be viewed with a high degree of suspicion.
In his brilliant and disturbing book House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth, author Robyn Dawes discusses how we learn. "Two conditions are important for experiential learning: One, a clear understanding of what constitutes an incorrect response or error in judgment, and two, immediate, unambiguous and consistent feedback when such errors are made," Dawes says.
Experiential learning is how we learn to walk, talk, and drive a car, for example. With learning to drive a car, there is a clear expectation: you must drive between the lines on the correct side of the road. And we get immediate feedback when we do it wrong as we try to correct the direction of the car by making adjustments to the steering wheel. 99.9% of us are not expert drivers coming out the gate. It can take months - even years - to become a skilled driver. Examples of bona fide experts we can trust are chemists , engineers, and chess masters - those who have loads of empirical, scientific data they have tested for themselves and on which they base their findings and skill. Chemists, for example, consistently produce the same results from experiments. Engineers can predict with a high degree of accuracy when a structure will fail, and chess masters will consistently beat you. Experience is a great way to learn chemistry, engineering, or chess.
Many experts learned their craft without the benefit of either a clear expectation of what success is, nor the benefit of receiving immediate feedback about the results of their efforts. Walter Freeman is an example of someone considered to be an "expert" at one time. A graduate from two of the most prestigious schools in the country - Yale and the University of Pennsylvania Medical School - he was president of the American Association of Neuropathologists, president of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association.
Freeman developed a theory that a specific procedure - the lobotomy - would be beneficial for mentally ill patients. Unlike the experts above, Freeman's theory was not easily falsifiable. He did not conduct double-blind tests where post-procedure results were compared to a control group. Instead, Freeman relied on his observations of the patients and his clinical judgment (training, experience, and education) to judge whether the treatment helped the patient. (Click here to watch a clip from PBS's "The Lobotomist" that shows how Freeman ignored the failures of his procedures, or watch another clip below.)
It was a relatively simple procedure. A hammer was used to drive an ice pick through the back of the eye socket to perform a transorbital lobotomy. Freeman performed over 3000 of these procedures, including on 23-year-old Rosemary Kennedy who along with many other people, was permanently disabled as a result. Freeman even performed the operation on children, including an eighteen-month-old infant and a twelve-year-old boy named Howard Dully who wrote a book called My Lobotomy about how the procedure ruined his life. It was not until a drug called Thorazine was developed that the practice fell out of favor. Freeman continued to perform lobotomies despite the fact that several of his patients died. His license, however, was ultimately revoked.
Unfortunately, many "experts" are no more scientific in their approach than Freeman was. They base their expertise on years of experience, training, and education, even their professional affiliations. Yet they have no empirical data to support their theories. Freeman had all the credentials of the "expert." He graduated from the best schools, had years of experience, and was president of the leading professional groups of his day. But was indeed no expert at all.
Decision-Making Best Practice #16: Trust those experts who predictions and theories are testable and falsifiable. Experts who base their expertise on their education, training, and experience rather than empirical results should be viewed with a high degree of suspicion.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home