When faced with unfamiliar problems, the instinct is to find an expert. Need software fixed? Call a developer. Are you facing a pandemic? Consult an epidemiologist. Does Sky News need an expert on something? Find someone who can talk. Tackling strategic analysis? Seek out a strategist, probably from McKinsey and the like. But reliance on experts comes with its own problems, encapsulated in the “Expert Fallacy.”
Understanding the Expert Fallacy
The Expert Fallacy occurs when we trust an expert’s opinion on matters beyond their expertise. And often, we don’t know what their experience or expertise is. They just sound convincing. This misjudgment can lead to wrong or daft decisions and misplaced trust. Experts are often overconfident in their own knowledge. Especially on TV new channels. Why? Because they are paid to sound confident. It’s entertainment. They may speak authoritatively on topics inside and outside their purview, leading others to take their word as gospel. How many listen to an expert just because they attended the right university? Attended the right school or be at the right consultancy? Groupthink by people who have yet to experience a variety of life experiences and have zero real business experience. It’s nuts in the extreme.
Real-World Examples
In intelligence and corporate environments, experts frequently overstep their bounds:
An expert in tribal conflicts may make economic-associated comments without proper knowledge.
A manager may advise an officer on handling a source they’ve never met based solely on theoretical knowledge. Or a TV military analyst may offer their expertise on things that happened 18 hours ago—ancient history in a conflict.
An economist may tell an audience about an impending recession. Based on what they have heard or the patterns around the last time it happened. And when it doesn’t happen, they are on TV telling how they knew it wasn’t going to happen because
The problem is exacerbated by our tendency to listen to these experts. Even when they stray outside their specialised knowledge or have no idea what’s happening or what to do, but presenting their knowledge behind a lectern with a couple of flags behind them gives them authority. As historical and contemporary examples illustrate, this misplaced trust can have significant repercussions. Covid immediately springs to mind.
The Quest for Multiple Experts
Some suggest relying on a panel of experts across various fields to counteract the expert fallacy. The rationale is that a diverse group can collectively address multiple issues, such as epidemiology and economics. However, even this approach could be better.
Issues with Group Expertise
Cross-Disciplinary Overreach: Individual experts within the group may still comment on areas outside their expertise. Dominant voices, whether right or wrong, will have more influence on the outcome.
Media Pressure: Experts will feel compelled to answer all questions, even those beyond their knowledge, to satisfy journalists and the public and to be invited back next time.
Professional Bias: Experts needing more support with decision-making processes may overstep their role. Perhaps believing they can make better decisions based on their data and analysis.
Historical Insights: Why We Don’t Let Experts Decide Everything
Historically, many have experimented with various decision-making frameworks. We’ve moved from decisions by chance, political power, and experts to a jury system where 12 random people. Not experts who determine guilt or innocence. An evolution that highlights a critical insight. While experts provide valuable information, the ultimate decisions are often better made by a diverse group of people.
Balancing Expertise and Decision-Making
So, how do we ensure that experts contribute effectively without overstepping their boundaries? Here are some strategies:
Judging Experts. Utilise mental models to decide the reliability and relevance of an expert’s analysis. The D-A-D-A (Data-Analysis-Decide-Act) model helps focus on the core data. Ask the right questions about an expert’s conclusions.
Positive-Sum vs. Zero-Sum Games. Understand whether an expert engages in a cooperative (positive-sum) or competitive (zero-sum) interaction. Game theory principles can assess this to discern the expert’s motivations.
Risk Assessment: Evaluate the risks associated with following an expert’s advice. This helps determine the likelihood of success and manage potential pitfalls.
A fresh pair of eyes. Someone comes in fresh with no preconceived idea of what their answer is. Or what they decided the answer was the last time they saw something similar in a similar business. Look at the data, read the articles and the background information. Talk to the people involved. You will be amazed at what is revealed to them.
Conclusion
In today’s world, everyone is a decision-maker. The task is determining which experts to trust and how to incorporate their insights without falling into the Expert Fallacy. We can make more informed, balanced decisions by applying structured models and, importantly, maintaining a healthy scepticism about the limits of expertise.
The journey to effective decision-making involves the following:
Recognising the boundaries of expertise.
Looking at diverse opinions.
Consistently questioning the data and motivations behind expert advice.
As we navigate the challenges of modern decision-making, the key is not to discard expertise but to integrate it wisely. Ensuring that it informs rather than dictates our choices.