Beating down the non-expert

I was standing watching a world cup football game in a pizzeria when I heard an angry voice trying to get my attention. A woman stood there with her husband and a small child in her arms rapidly expressing her displeasure at something I had done. Quickly realising what was happening, I waited for her to take a breath and before the next tirade arrived, I said, 'I am sorry, I don't work here'.

'Scusa, scusa', she replied blushing. She wanted a table at the restaurant. I was in Italy on holiday.

I am not an expert at everything. I know, I know, looks are deceiving.

I have had some very thoughtful exchanges over the last six months with people that at least at surface level, appear quite educated or skilled in certain areas. It really is great especially when people are willing to argue their positions, criticise mine and even reconsider their own positions and bring new thoughts into the conversation.

One thing that does happen at times though is that people assume that because I write about a topic, I must presume myself a well-read expert in it. Although I do have my areas of proficiency, this is rarely the case. I have however many interest areas that I like to think about and develop positions on, even if there are possibly better positions already formed.

Why think about stuff that has already been thought deeply about when the answers are available at the fingertips? Because, thinking itself is a skill that requires practice, and we live in a world where conclusions and solutions can be found very easily without thinking. There are many smart people, in many areas who spend the majority of their time creating answers to a narrow topic.

I however am not a very good consumer of information as I prefer to cook myself. Even if it results in what a chef would regard a failure. For me however, I like a very wide range of foods and flavours and will experiment continually. If one looked through my body of work here at Steemit, I think they will find quite a varied range of topics and even presentation styles. There is no way, unless very gifted, that someone can be an expert across all. I definitely am not.

But, an expert can come across an article within their field and comment very deep quickly. In some instances, it is like taking someone that played Duckshoot once on a Nintendo and dropping them in the middle of Syria with an M4 and 210 rounds of ammunition.

What many of the 'experts' do not seem to recognise is that they are dealing with a thinker (of sorts) not another expert. I make no claims that my information is the words of an expert and strongly suggest being very, very objective with anyone that ever does claim their information as fact. Especially if it has anything to do with the mind, belief systems or such as the information is very fluid.

Having said that, there is also value in the words of a non-expert as it can provoke thoughts and considerations that may not have been considered before. This can increase general thinking behaviours and perhaps break people out of an echo chamber for a short time.

There is even value for the experts. An expert, no matter how much they know personally, is likely to want or need the information to be disseminated across a wider audience. When an expert comes across the incorrectness of a layperson, they shouldn't just try to correct the information, they should be interested enough to discover why the 'wrong' information was held in the first place and work out ways to be better in their field.

I assume that the cure for a disease will often need to be investigated in and applied to those with the disease and understanding how it was contracted and the symptoms and effects it has on the body will need to be considered also. Of course, another approach would be to destroy all people with the disease instead as it too will be an effective cure but is also unlikely to leave the human race alive for very long.

In my view, we live in a time where thinking processes are quickly degrading as technological solutions replace biological. I think that this is leading to an atrophying of the collective mind and I am finding it increasingly difficult to find people to talk to about a wide range of topics.

This is one of the most attractive sides to Steemit for me. I don't need to find someone that can satisfy all of my intellectual needs, I can attract experts to question each of them independently of each other. I can also spread my own expertise wider and overall, we can connect and add value to the collective.

At any one time, there are many topics that have an influence on our lives. No one person can be an expert on all of them but those that may benefit from control of the group, can provide experts across all areas.

Let's say there are 5 influencing fields and you are an expert in one and knowledgeable in another. The other three, you must trust the expert provided information. This is brilliant if like in a well-functioning community, the experts can be largely trusted to provide information in the best interest of the group. But if a centralised authority holds the hands of all experts, it is easy to manipulate the information and get support across majorities.

It may mean that any one person agrees with the central authoritative view 60 percent of the time as they do not hold enough information to know better. Personally, I am not a massive fan of authorities controlling my actions. But, since the group majority decides. This means that through average ignorance (but still with narrow expertise), an authority can manipulate the majority and use numerous techniques to enforce their will. Now, there are many more than 5 influencing systems that affect our experience.

The media use the same technique as they have expert claiming writers across a range of topics but their readership is knowledgeable in only a fraction of the areas. Again, this means that subtle shifts can be incorporated into all areas and although picked up by experts within a specific field, those same experts may not notice the trend in other fields not on their knowledge radar.

In my little opinion, this can be used to shift large masses of people significantly in time and can have very large implications for the entire community as a whole. There are many ways that this comes through and over the internet it spreads like wildfire.

The internet is a place that holds all kinds of people, all kinds of views, with all kinds of skill levels. When it comes to presenting and criticising ideas, we should encourage one and use the other with caution. An expert proving themselves by punishing a non-expert verbally may make the expert feel superior, but will likely create a timid thinker.

It is no different to a boxer using his fists to settle an argument with a child. There is inherent violence in the action. But a boxer need not act so, a boxer can bring compassion and understanding and nurture the child and support them to be independent and strong, not fearful and meek.

We have enough meek thinkers without encouraging more by tearing those that try apart. This is not written as a protection of myself but this again is the internet. We actually have no idea who we are speaking to at a skill, experience or age level much of the time.

I am not an intellectual Mike Tyson, but I can take a hit to my ego and to my knowledge base as I have accepted the role that I play willingly. However, I cannot speak for all so try my best to be compassionate when it comes to the views of others, even when I know them to be 'wrong'.

However, I also do not like authority, so attempting to enforce a position upon me is likely to be met with a doubling-down effect at times. I do try to fight this urge in myself but I am not always successful. I try to be considerate of information however badly it is presented but do not always succeed.

This means that if you are trying to 'school' me, I am unlikely to learn the lesson and rather than change my behaviour or broaden my view, you will strengthen it. I understand that this is not a great way for me to be, but I am likely one of the more open to change people you will meet. What about the others?

It is great that the intellectuals want to engage and teach what they know by finding flaws and holes in what others don't, but consider the approach.

The reason I write this is that I have noticed a trend across some of the posts that I have read that 'smart' critics have come in aggressively to a conversation. Regardless of your knowledge base or your experience or your IQ, doing this just makes you a bit of a wanker.

If one is so knowledgeable and skilled in their field, why be aggressive? Even if facing aggression from an opponent, if you hold the superior position, why attempt to force the point?

I assume that with all of the intelligence in a field, the common human trait of neediness and desire to be recognised still may have sway, so even with low competition, one still wants to 'win'.

It is likely that the smart people in this world would like more smart people in this world with which to talk and work. When it comes to information and understanding, there is no 'win' in it. But there is a 'lose'.

The lose is keeping information closed by creating barriers of entry to obtain it or destroying the immature thoughts of an early thinker before they have a chance to develop their skills enough to think well.

The other lose is that failing to spread good information and encouraging thinkers opens the world up to more polarisation and more control to the authoritative agendas. In time, this will lead to a decreasing pool of thinkers and an increasing number of sheep.

I don't think that many at Steemit would see this as a good thing in the long-term, especially if like me, they don't want a herd of sheep making decisions that will influence upon them.

I am no expert on any of this though so feel free to tear it apart. I am sure that many smart people can go through and find all the logical fallacies in my thinking, yet completely miss the point of the article.

Why don't I spell out the points in my most of my articles?

Think about it.

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]