RSS
People Tend To Follow The Advice Of Experts Over Their Own Common Sense
from the rational-behavior dept
Just as yet another new startup is launching, designed to give individuals "expert" decision making advice, reader ChurchHatesTucker points us to a new study that notes that people all too often stop thinking after being given "expert" advice -- even if that advice is bad. While the folks behind the study use this as another crack to make fun of economists who believe in rational behavior, I'm not sure they're right. What's more likely is that individuals are still acting rationally. It's just that they believe that the "experts" really do have more information/knowledge/wisdom about a certain topic -- and thus they trust it over their own info. That's still quite rational. The real question should be just how often the "experts" give really bad advice. The problem with the study in question was that the expert was giving bad advice that he wouldn't normally give, making much of the actual experiment kind of meaningless. This sort of thing really is only a problem if the experts frequently give bad advice.
Still, this probably isn't too surprising. We've seen over time that people tend to rely on any sort of "expert" input, even if it's from a computer (such as driving off a cliff thanks to GPS or believing a financial model that suggests the likelihood of massive subprime mortgage defaults is almost non-existent). It's not so much about going against common sense. It's just that we tend to believe the "authority" over common sense, because we know we don't have all the info that we need in many cases -- so, we assume (often reasonably) that the authority or expert is better prepared to direct us than our own common sense.
16 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Nothing Scales Like Stupidity
- How Publishers Repeated The Same Mistake As Record Labels: DRM Obsession Gave Amazon Dominant Position
- If Politicians Pushing SOPA/PIPA Want To Create Jobs, They Should Support The Internet -- And Stop Treating Copyright Companies As Special
- Knowledge Is A Universal Natural Resource -- And Locking It Up Hurts Everyone
- Tim O'Reilly Explains Where The Federal Gov't Has Gone Wrong On SOPA/PIPA: Solving The Wrong Problem
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Silence the bleating of sheep
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
shades of Milgram
Interestingly, afterwards, while upset, most were happy to have taken part in the experiment as it pointed out to them how trusting they were of authority.
The point is, everyone says 'oh, i would never do that', but as has been pointed out by Milgram, Zimbardo and just about every war in history, we are very poor judges of our own character and what we are willing to do to tow the line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_ex periment
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
How to recognise the experts
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Experts
Personally, I consider the real expert to be the sum of all experts. There is no one person with all the answers in every situation. Therefore, it is always best to get multiple expert opinions and never stop thinking/learning.
Good things to remember in all cases is that experts are only real people in disguise and the definition of an expert is someone who knows one more fact than you!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
WE are just all Lazy...
Let's just slow down...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Listening to someone who really knows a topic is a good idea, but that doesn't mean they are always right. We know what we know when we know it, not before. There is no way getting around it.
Was subprime loaning a bad idea? It sure wasn't when the market was going up. Who knew guys would jump into the drivers seat and fly planes into buildings? Who knew that terrorists would hang out at a local gas station, shoot the driver and then drive it into the nearest school? Well, the last one has not happened, but it could but we are not locking that one down.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I laughed at this. Been there many times.
I think I know where the breakdown is:
You: "Putting a user interface there will skew the page, may not be browser compatible, and will disrupt user readability."
Customer: "Your point? [site] does it, and it looks good. I want it."
You: "Okay, you're the customer."
[weeks later]
Customer: "Hey! Why didn't you tell me this thing was going to cause problems! Our customers are complaining!"
You: *furious*
Next time, try using Change Request Forms and ensure they sign them. Absolutely WONDERFUL ways to prevent such things.
Then, you can charge more for "emergency" corrections.
Otherwise, you're not an expert in their eyes.
Sad, but true.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It only makes sense
Same goes for lawyers. "I'm sorry but you don't have any chance of winning this in court, accept settlement" or "I'm sure we can win, lets fight this suit" you are most likely going to do it.
An expert is someone who you pay to know more than you about something specific and give you advice. If an expert gives bad advice regularly they will not be considered an expert anymore (lawyers disbarred, medical licenses revoked). I say there is nothing wrong with trusting the advise of experts, just be careful who you choose as your expert.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
One Nobel Prize economist says what we are doing is right. Another Nobel Prize winner says it is exactly wrong. They both can't be right.
Again, it goes back to we know what we know when we know it. If you are driving down a road and your GPS tells you to go over a cliff, maybe there was a bridge when the GPS map was loaded in, but not now. Prudence would seem to tell you to trust what you know right now.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Expert advice
She had a case that was IDENTICAL to a situation involving my daughter some time ago, and, without delving into it deeply enough to understand the circumstances (again, IDENTICAL to the advice my daughter got!) she gave the standard Dr. Laura answer - the wife stays home and takes care of the child, the husband works and supports the family.
My daughter took that advice at first, and it almost destroyed her - then she came to her senses, and now she is doing GREAT, but she is still hostile to "expert" advice.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Libel for bloggers
First, it starts with:
"Precisely what, then, requires libel review? It is best to begin with a simplified definition of libel. A defamatory statement is a statement that is factual in character about
an identifiable entity or living individual that, if believed, would influence the reader’s or hearer’s opinion of the entity or individual, either by reflecting badly on the person’s character, or by harming the person’s reputation or diminishing the esteem, respect, or good will that he, she or it enjoys in a relevant community."
OOPS! The phrase "factual in character" seems to say facts are libelous - they can be, but only in very special circumstances. Here, we seem to be saying "not libelous is libelous" - nonsense!
It then uses the example of the Bush brothers "evading" military service, and says "truth is a defense" - PEOPLE! "evading" is NOT the same as "avoiding" - the statement would be libelous!
The organization seems to want to do the right thing. I could rewrite their pages for them, if they can't find someone capable of doing so.
Ask them if they want my help (free, of course, since it is a public service).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment