Who Do You Trust?

It is one of the peculiarities of the human situation that sometimes, in some situations, we have to depend wholly or in part on other people's judgements. Doctors, politicians, preachers, scientists and a million others all seek to advise us to do this, believe that, or choose some side of a dispute.

Ideally, we can check and understand most of the key evidence ourselves. Is there a benevolent God? All of us have lives littered with the evidence. Should I buy this something or other that somebody really, really wants to sell me? How much do we need it?

Other cases are harder. Is bailing out the big banks who got us into this financial mess really necessary? Is anthropogenic global warming a big threat to our children and grandchildren? Is now a good time to invest in the stock market? Will a financial stimulus be likely to be worth the economic risks it entails? Will my future and our departments be better if we decide to hire this string theorist or that cosmologist? We can apply a lot of methods to try to decide these questions, but in most cases we can not do all of the necessary analysis ourselves. We have to depend, at least in part, on the judgement of others who are, or present themselves to be, more expert.

The evolution of the human brain seems to have equipped us with a number of strategies to evaluate this kind of "expert" testimony. A few usually relevant considerations:

(1)Do we know the purported expert or his (or her) other work?

(2)Is he honest?

(3)Is he nuts?

(4)Do his arguments seem to make sense?

(5)Does he have a dog in this fight, and, if so, to what extent are his interests likely to be aligned with mine?

(6)Can he explain his reasoning? Will he engage intellectually and answer questions, or is he evasive, dismissive, or other wise slippery?

(7)Does he exhibit good judgement on other counts?

(2), (3), and (6) are the biggies for me. How can I trust a liar or a nut? Why should I trust someone who won't or can't explain his reasoning.

It is amazing to me that most people hardly seem to use the above strategies. Instead, they seem to rely on another evolutionarily certified tactic, common affiliation: is the would be persuader a member of my group, gang, or club? Bernie Madoff did not obviously fail most of my criteria above, but he obviously and conspicuously failed numbers (6) and (7), and nonetheless people with huge sums of money chose to bet on him. Why? It seems to have been a mixture of common affiliation (Madoff belonged to the nicest country clubs and the best connected temple, sat on the boards of prestigious institutions) and irrational greed.

Many a good salesman learns to adopt some of the protective coloration of his surrounding - he starts talking like and gesturing like the potential customer. Madoff managed to become a self-created monument in the landscape.

One of the most potent affiliations turns out to be shared resentments. Each of us manages to feel somehow downtrodden or disrespected by some part of the surrounding world. They (we) rage to strike back at those who we perceive to threaten or disrespect us, whether they be supercilious professors or uppity minorities. These resentments and fears are the food of the demagogue and the radio show host. Most of us, I suspect, see Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter as comical if rude buffoons. For their adherents, the buffoonishness is a sort of badge of challenge against all they resent, much like the weird clothes and body piercings of high schools goths and freaks.

Next episode - climate change.