During the coronavirus pandemic, politicians have taken to telling us that their decisions are based on the advice of their experts while the news media have bombarded us with predictions from experts. Perhaps not unexpectedly, with the benefit of hindsight, many of these decisions and predictions appear to be have been ill-advised or inaccurate which is likely to lead to a loss of trust in both politicians and experts. However, this is unsurprising and the reliability of experts, particularly those willing to make public pronouncements, is well-known to be dubious. Professor Philip E. Tetlock of the University of Pennsylvania has assessed the accuracy of forecasts made by purported experts over two decades and found that they were little better than a chimpanzee throwing darts. However, the more well-known experts seemed to be worse at forecasting [Tetlock & Gardner, 2016]. In other words, we should assign less credibility to those experts whose advice is more frequently sought by politicians or quoted in the media. Tetlock’s research has found that the best forecasters are better at inductive reasoning, pattern detection, cognitive flexibility and open-mindedness [Mellers et al, 2015]. People with these attributes will tend not to express unambiguous opinions but instead will attempt to balance all factors in reaching a view that embraces many uncertainties. Politicians and the media believe that we want to hear a simple message unadorned by the complications of describing reality; and, hence they avoid the best forecasters and prefer those that provide the clear but usually inaccurate message. Perhaps that’s why engineers are rarely interviewed by the media or quoted in the press because they tend to be good at inductive reasoning, pattern detection, cognitive flexibility and are open-minded [see ‘Einstein and public engagement‘ on August 8th, 2018]. Of course, this was well-known to the Chinese philosopher, Lao Tzu who is reported to have said: ‘Those who have knowledge, don’t predict. Those who predict, don’t have knowledge.’
References:
Realize Engineering 
Well said, and I fully support this message. But it leaves me wondering why media and politics want us to listen to a one-sided message only, especially in these times that complain of populism, one-sidedness and the lack of willingness to listen to other opinions.
Thinking about and explaining complex issues is hard. Neuroscientists believe that it requires the assembling and synchronization of very large collections of neurons in our brains, which is the very opposite of the repetitive formation of relatively small assemblies of neurons that are probably associated with activities we find pleasurable. Perhaps this is the appeal of simple, straightforward and repetitive messages. For more on this topic see https://realizeengineering.blog/2017/03/15/is-the-world-incomprehensible/
Pingback: Do you know RIO? | Realize Engineering
Pingback: Intelligent openness | Realize Engineering