My sense of 'being able to navigate the world accurately' has been less 'learning facts about the world', like I predicted, and more 'learning how to accurately gauge the trustworthiness of experts.'
-
-
2. If an expert is subject to incentives: anything ideological, in any direction, is a big pressure to not think accurately - so for example "professor of feminist studies at UC Berkeley" or "Famous Qanon ex-CIA youtuber"? Be more suspicious.
Show this thread -
3. If what they say simply don't make sense to you. This is a bit vague, because a lot of experts are right even if you don't understand them. But if you are trying, really hard, to genuinely understand, if you're not ideologically opposed, but something still seems off? Be sus.
Show this thread -
4. If the requirements to become an expert in their field require heavily on memorization, instead of paradigm-challenging problem solving. Lots of credentials are just meant to show you know the existing information well, and don't mean you're good at accurate predictions.
Show this thread -
Expertise is very often a fuzzy veneer of authority that we bestow on a few select people for being able to pass the right tests. And being able to pass tests is good, but we still need to be informed and discerning in how we choose to give out our trust.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.