Really well articulated! I agree with every point. I believe that in order to identify an expert with a high probability of being right, you have to be at least experienced in the same field or perhaps almost an expert yourself! There are some fake experts that are easy to identify (like Hubermann) just by listening to them. But some are really difficult… I’m currently working in academic medicine, and after seeing with my own eyes, I understand now. Everything is politics, and almost everything revolves around money: office politics on research funding, dirty pharma money, fake research and fake numbers, data harvesting, ghost authors with no contribution, editors who are not even experts themselves, corrupt ethic committees. When I found out, I was so demotivated and sad. P.S.: I can name EMPEROR HF, PIONEER4, DAPA-HF, CASTLE AF, and 15 more, and I’m no HF expert. But man, the names are stupid! It makes it so difficult to remember!
The way you described the graph suggests you may have been carefully hedging to communicate the point while not recapitulating an entire research paper-the original Dunning-Kruger graph has two curves: the 45° line representing equivalence between real and perceived performance, and the curve representing the observed perceived performance by test-takers, which is just flatter, i.e., lower scorers slightly overestimate and higher scorers slightly underestimate their performance. It doesn't have the region where the journeywoman believes herself to be the master. The construct is illustrative either way, and the graph presented definitely describes a phenomenon common to the human experience! Including, at least for one human, realizing several times how much he had yet to learn himself time and time again...
I think it's critical to realize that even if you're very smart, bad ideas in topics you yourself know nothing about can be made to sound very reasonable/logical very easily. It's what powers netflix health documentaries haha.
@3:26 1. Expertise is content specific @4:52 2. Expertise is context specific @6:24 3. An expert must have a high degree of factual knowledge @7:11 4. An expert needs some degree of formal training in the relevant field @9:03 5. Expertise requires experience and deliberate practice @9:27 6. An expert recognizes the limits of their expertise @10:23 7. An expert seeks continuous self-improvement >Not essential indicators, but helpful @11:26 8. Experts tend to be recognized as experts by their peers ("this one is tricky") @15:12 9. Experts tend to not sell you a product that brings them personal financial gain
As always loving your videos. I was wondering if you would ever make a video discussing research. More specifically, what research journals you recommend, which are considered vanity, and how to best tell them apart?
Well said Dr. Strong. I hope many people see you video and understand how insidious this problem is. Even many of our medical colleagues fall for these Guru.
0:00 Intro 03:23 Expertise is content specific. 04:53 Expertise is context specific. 06:19 An expert must have a high degree of factual knowledge. 07:12 An expert needs some degree of formal training in the relevant field. 09:05 Expertise requires experience and deliberate practice. 09:25 An expert recognizes the limits of their expertise. 10:22 An expert seeks continuous self-improvement. 11:25 Experts tend to be recognized as experts by their peers. 15:07 Experts tend to not sell you a product that brings them personal financial gain. 16:07 Outro
