So many people who want to help you. Or to control you?
This article makes a rough inventory of cases in which experts and other guides
might have excessive power and of their incidences on people and society.
This topic is obviously controversial,
A kind of advice ...to be wary of advices.
How ambiguous !
Inventory: who are the masters of influence?
Every field of activities has its rainmakers
- The Milgram experiment was testing
obedience
to authorities but also to experts.
It induced the game contestants to send increasingly strong electric shocks to
other players who gave wrong answers in a quiz.
The trust in experts and the fiction that they took all responsibility made that a
large majority of players went all the way until sending potentially lethal shocks.
It induced the game contestants to send increasingly strong electric shocks to
other players who gave wrong answers in a quiz.
The trust in experts and the fiction that they took all responsibility made that a
large majority of players went all the way until sending potentially lethal shocks.
are regularly contaminated by peer conformity and tempted to make similar
predictions, often by just extrapolating past data, or reacting like a herd to
the general optimism or pessimism, usually a bit late.
predictions, often by just extrapolating past data, or reacting like a herd to
the general optimism or pessimism, usually a bit late.
give usually a single earning projection (instead of several scenarios).
Also they are conditioned by peer conformity, they wait for others to change
their conclusions, thus react late to new events by following market price
evolutions instead of making anticipations.
Also their buy / sell recommendations, instead of leaving investors draw their
own conclusions, are often motivated just to create activity and fees for their
organization.
Also they are conditioned by peer conformity, they wait for others to change
their conclusions, thus react late to new events by following market price
evolutions instead of making anticipations.
Also their buy / sell recommendations, instead of leaving investors draw their
own conclusions, are often motivated just to create activity and fees for their
organization.
Rating agencies,
paid by the debt issuers, are often quite slow to downgrade them, or do
it in a rush
only after the market started to show doubts.
They are more under-reacting/ overreacting bureaucratic followers than smart
forecasters.
Whether they are useful or damaging is more and more debated.
only after the market started to show doubts.
They are more under-reacting/ overreacting bureaucratic followers than smart
forecasters.
Whether they are useful or damaging is more and more debated.
Salespeople now labeled "customer advisers"
(well, they better adapt their offer to customer needs and financial possibilities),
But in reality most of them obey sales objectives.
But in reality most of them obey sales objectives.
- Philosophical schools - and, more surprisingly scientific paradigms .
those area of purported rationality have their lemons.
This is a problem is when their star initiators / disseminators tend to dominate
the professional / academic attention, or the general public attention.
This is a problem is when their star initiators / disseminators tend to dominate
the professional / academic attention, or the general public attention.
Cults, religious gurus and religious "authorities"
usually sticking to binary dogmas
-
The power of the technostructure (managers)
on corporate or government decisions
-
Physicians subject to diagnosis biases, cognitive and affect heuristics
-
Political leaders pocketing democracy
through election instead of sortition.
-
Also think tanks, lobbies, interest groups
which job is usually to promote partial views
-
Elites / celebrities / role models / trend setters
-
Consultants / coaches
who bring standard solutions supposed being the "best practices".
-
Professors who either preach mainstream knowledge
...or fancy theories, instead of encouraging curiosity.
-
Social / psychological helpers
some might become invasive just to justify their job or because
of their taste to control other people life.
of their taste to control other people life.
-
Medias
offering half-cooked "tips", and / or their sententious editorials
about the state of affairs.
about the state of affairs.
Consequences : the limits of guidance
Are deciders too weak in the anti-clout guerrilla?
For
decision making, to get information and even guidance from professionals is an obvious need in our complex and uncertain world. All the
more in highly technical or when a second opinion would avoid tunnel vision.
The problem starts when those experts gain influence to the extent that the
decider becomes hypnotized or addicted and abandon its freedom of investigation,
thinking and choice.
Thence several groups of issues, which responsibility
falls as well on the experts as on the deciders.
- Deciders
who abandon their independence and power
* either because of mental laziness or gullibility,
* or more pervertedly to hide their responsibility for the choices they make.
Then they skirt their homework (information gathering, projections,
comparing scenarios and solutions) and they accept - with just token
questions - what the experts bring them already cooked on a plate.
* either because of mental laziness or gullibility,
* or more pervertedly to hide their responsibility for the choices they make.
Then they skirt their homework (information gathering, projections,
comparing scenarios and solutions) and they accept - with just token
questions - what the experts bring them already cooked on a plate.
- Experts
with excessive clout endangering individual freedom & democratic society.
Experts with extensive experience have a knack to understand or feel that
there is something telltale in a situation which an amateur would not notice.
On the other hand, their own cognitive biases and heuristics, can make their
previsions not fully reliable. They often rely so much on their experience
and intuitive ability that they tend to believe in their infallibility.
This can lead to big decision mistakes.
Another thing is that deciders want experts to give in a clear prevision,
not a range of possibilities (range estimate aversion). Thus an expert that is not
overconfident in a single estimate is seen as a wavering incompetent advisor.
Experts with extensive experience have a knack to understand or feel that
there is something telltale in a situation which an amateur would not notice.
On the other hand, their own cognitive biases and heuristics, can make their
previsions not fully reliable. They often rely so much on their experience
and intuitive ability that they tend to believe in their infallibility.
This can lead to big decision mistakes.
Another thing is that deciders want experts to give in a clear prevision,
not a range of possibilities (range estimate aversion). Thus an expert that is not
overconfident in a single estimate is seen as a wavering incompetent advisor.
group that strikes as well experts as "gurutized" deciders.
- Last but not least,
swindlers
who, in order to grab money and benefits, play
* on a natural human trust on people's gullibility by giving the illusion of
friendliness, competence and honesty,
* also on emotions such as greed or fear.
Back to collection: decision psychology articles migrated from Knol
Back to collection: society / world issues articles migrated from Knol
Pageviews for this article before migration from Knol: 2.2 k
* on a natural human trust on people's gullibility by giving the illusion of
friendliness, competence and honesty,
* also on emotions such as greed or fear.
Back to collection: decision psychology articles migrated from Knol
Back to collection: society / world issues articles migrated from Knol
Pageviews for this article before migration from Knol: 2.2 k
|
|