May you live in 'expert times'
An often cited proverb suggests that we would all be fortunate to "live in interesting times." While at first glance this would appear to be describing a golden age of society, a second look finds the sinister, hidden meaning that "interesting times" are likely a curse. History shows us that periods of great turmoil and change are considerably more treacherous to humanity than periods of monotonous peace and stability.
Certainly, the years of the COVID pandemic in many ways could be described as "interesting," providing verification of the proverb. Nevertheless, even the most interesting of seas can be traversed safely if expert captains pilot our ships. Perhaps our fear should not be that times are "interesting," but of the "experts" who guide us through these extreme periods of social and political unrest.
Unless one has omnipotent experience and knowledge, we are destined to seek the advice of experts to manage inevitable life events. We have ceded control of many aspects of society to individuals, corporations and institutions professing superior experience and judgment. But do we ever ask ourselves what makes someone an expert? Further, can expert opinion be truly benevolent given the inherent bias in all of us? And if we are biased, and there is no benevolent expertise, how do we then determine when to trust or reject expert advice?
There are countless examples in finance, politics and medicine - actually, in almost all aspects of life - when experts provided unaccountable advice that was incorrect and harmful. In finance, data suggest that financial analysts are accurate 30 percent of the time when picking equity price targets 12-18 months into the future. It is no surprise that investors have shifted en masse to passive investing, facilitating the rise of exchange traded funds that simply match the return of the various stock market indices. In politics, how many seasoned pundits managed to correctly predict the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election? It may be possible that cases of "malexpertise" exist, wherein an expert intentionally provides false information to achieve a desired secondary goal.
What if you are wealthy or ridiculously famous and have access to a platform that allows your opinion to be widely disseminated? With such reach, these individuals appear to be in possession of de facto expertise without anyone questioning their experience or credentials. Sadly, the social media "likes" and "followers" of these influencers have replaced the PhDs and wisdom of true experts. Because someone agrees with you or likes what you are wearing does not an expert make. This is mere entertainment, the mill of popular opinion, and should not be used as the standard for anything serious.
Even better is to completely control the content on the platform and wield the power to instantly cancel dissenting views while redirecting traffic to other pages of acceptable facts without any discourse. Move along; no unintended consequences to see here.
During the pandemic we witnessed all manners of expertise from multiple sources as often unverified, headlinedriven opinions inundated the public domain 24/7. The flow of news and information was so relentless and overwhelming that many developed anecdotal expertise. Countless individuals, with no hint of any medical background or training, "knew" all there was to know about viral immunology, vaccine development and epidemiology. Countries, provinces, states, municipalities, schools and even kids' sporting leagues were all allowed - and in some cases, encouraged - to make quasi-evidence-based decisions about lockdowns: who could travel, go to school or play hockey.
Maybe the most concerning issue over the past few years relates to the leadership of the medical establishment and the erosion of public trust. When a regulatory body communicates to its physician membership not to discuss masks, lockdowns or vaccines with patients, we have now created self-censored expertise. Many physicians became justifiably fearful of conveying any information, no matter how sound or logical, that opposed the official public health policy for fear of reprisal or sanction.