Over 2300 years ago, Aristotle wrote in Nicomachean Ethics:
Although the young may be experts in geometry and mathematics and similar branches of knowledge, we do not consider that a young man can have Prudence. The reason is that Prudence includes a knowledge of particular facts, and this is derived from experience, which a young man does not possess; for experience is the fruit of years.
Aristotle recognized that experience is a necessary, though not a sufficient condition, for the acquisition of wisdom. Those who gain this most valued gift acquire it through years of reflective observation of life, human behavior, and personal introspection. Knowing oneself, the origins of one’s goals and ambitions as well as personal vulnerabilities and fears enables a person to understand the emotions of others. As the years turn into decades, those who travel through life with such a reflective habit of mind begin to see patterns in life, in human behavior and in those things that foster trust or create hostility.
Centuries before Aristotle, the Chinese philosopher Confucius observed, “By three methods we may learn wisdom: first, by reflection, which is noblest; second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” The first of these routes to wisdom was modeled by Ben Franklin, who is famous for many things including his adages that he published in The Poor Richard’s Almanack. One of the these that he employed in achieving so many of his goals is captured in the following:
In studying law or physick, or any other art or science, by which you propose to get your livelihood, though you find it at first hard, difficult and unpleasing, use diligence, patience and perseverance; the irksomeness of your task will thus diminish daily, and your labour shall finally be crowned with success. You shall go beyond all your competitors who are careless, idle or superficial in their acquisitions, and be at the head of your profession. Ability will command business, business *[will command]* wealth; and wealth an easy and honourable retirement when age shall require it.
Franklin’s speech at the Continental Convention in 1787, displayed in its power to move the delegates from discord to harmony, the depth of his wisdom and understanding of human nature. He knew the persuasiveness of confessing fallibility to encourage others to acknowledge the limits of their own perceptions. As expressed in an aphorism he had written in The Poor Richard’s Almanack 4 decades earlier,“ None but the well-bred man knows how to confess a fault or acknowledge himself in an error.”
Employing both true humility as well as its pretense, he was able to disarm those of opposing opinions. Staying relatively quiet and rational, while others were consumed with passion, was a technique he had developed that enabled him to negotiate agreement where no accord seemed possible. Combining this disposition with a willingness to relinquish credit for achievements, and attribute his ideas to others, enabled him to recruit people to collaborate in a variety of his personal causes.
Drawing upon experience to anticipate the consequences of various courses of action in human affairs, the wise person usually makes judgments that result in successful outcomes. However, the depth of this wisdom can vary across contexts in proportion to the person’s degree of immersion in that domain.
How do you find what you consider experts/the most intelligent thinkers? Have others disagreed with you about who they were?
In academic fields such as mathematics and the so-called “hard sciences,” the most intelligent thinkers are identified by their achievements, evident in their discoveries and publications. Their reputations evolve as their colleagues acknowledge the quality of their discoveries. People like Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Andrew Wiles and Grigory Perelman were recognized as giants in their fields. Usually there is strong consensus about the very best in these fields, though different people might disagree on their rankings.
In less objective academic disciplines, agreement on the experts can be more tenuous as ideologies enter the picture. Someone like E. O. Wilson, who did some important research on ant colonies was the founder of sociobiology and was considered an outstanding biologist by many of his colleagues. Yet other colleagues, who objected to his insistence that genetics play a major role in animal and human behavior, called him a racist, a misogynist, and a promoter of eugenics. This meant that a major portion of the academic community regarded him as an expert, while others in that same community denied his expertise. I, personally, believe him to have been one of the great intellects in biology, so those who regarded him as ill-intended would disagree with my judgment.
It is said that Economics is the only field in which two people can get a Nobel Prize for saying exactly the opposite thing. A famous example of economic prediction gone wrong was the failure of the investment firm Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), staffed by Nobel laureates Myron Scholes and Robert Merton. Basing their investment strategies on a model known as the Black-Scholes equation, they invested billions of dollars that continued to generate profits at unprecedented rates. Shortly after they had been ordained as foremost experts in their field, Russia defaulted on its bonds and a succession of unpredictable events sent LTCM into bankruptcy.
In recent years, Dr. Anthony Fauci, of the National Institutes of Health, has been embraced as the expert on what practices we must follow to protect ourselves from the dangers of Covid-19. On March 8, 2020, he was interviewed by Dr. Jon LaPook on the CBS news program 60 Minutes. The interview, described below is accessible on YouTube [1}
LaPook: There’s a lot of confusion among people and misinformation surrounding face masks. Can you discuss that?
Fauci: Right now people in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.
LaPook: You’re sure of it, because people are listening really closely to this?
Fauci: When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is, and often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
On April 3, 2020, Judy Woodruff interviewed Dr. Fauci on PBS Newshour.[2]
Woodruff: Just a few days ago, we were told that the thinking was that it was not necessary [to wear masks].
Fauci: The thinking is really now influenced by information that’s coming in. And the information is that more and more accumulation of data indicates that people who are without symptoms at all can transmit the virus, but importantly, they can do it merely by speaking. So there’s been a recent study that came out that says, even with the force from your voice of speaking there is a degree of aerosolization, namely the virus can come out, not very far, a few feet and down. So even though the perfect solution to this is that everyone at all times could stay 6 feet separated from another person…Putting a mask on yourself is more to prevent you from infecting someone else, and if everybody does that we’re each protecting each other.
In other words, when faced with new, unprecedented events, experts are often overconfident in their ability to make valid predictions. This tendency, that psychologists call “the intelligence trap,” often makes expert advice dangerous because it creates a false sense of security.
In summary, there are areas in which there is general consensus about those who are expert and their insights have substantial value. In other areas, there are ideologies that compromise the quality of information and make the identification of experts difficult. Then there are those areas of uncharted territory, where no one knows much and you have to trust your own instincts. You will probably find that your ability to determine who the experts are will depend on your own level of knowledge in that field.
