The plague of experts who aren't

Another huge vulnerability in modern times is that, as a species and as a society, we now have no straightforward way of assessing expertise. This vulnerability is a consequence of history and, to appreciate this, we need to step back into the past for a moment.

Human and prehuman species were driven to evolve as social creatures because we were tasty morsels for the larger meat eating animals.[75] The only way we could survive was to band together in groups. We had no choice. We cooperated or we were cast out on our own to be eaten. It was in the context of social, family-based communities, constituting no more than about 150 people, that the human species evolved.[76] (This optimal size is instinctive and once the number of people in an organisation exceeds 150 its efficiency and sense of community drops away.) In each group different people had different skills and aptitudes and this was plain for all to see. If you were a good cook, everyone could tell and enjoy the results. If you were good at building shelters, it soon became obvious and people would seek your help and advice.

Expertise has always existed. Each person has different knowledge, skills and different degrees of professionalism. In ancient times expertise was easy to recognise and readily accessible when needed. The whole tribe would know who were the best hunters, tool-makers, fishhook-makers, childminders, and so on. It would also know who was best at sorting out certain types of medical problems with herbs, who was good at setting broken bones and who had the most wisdom and authority to sort out relationship difficulties and conflicts. Thus genuine expertise was widely valued within the community.

Our vulnerability today is that, in the complex society we live in, made up not of loose gatherings of 150 individuals but of millions of people, we cannot rely upon our own observation of human capabilities or on local knowledge to assess expertise. To overcome this, we devised various systems that were, in effect, 'badges of status' to indicate who is or is not an expert.

Gradually this system developed; special clothing, membership of a guild or, if you were part of the ruling aristocracy, a coat of arms, marked you out. Today we allocate status and worth through academic qualifications such as degrees, diplomas and doctorships, through membership of trade associations, and by honour systems of one sort or another (including 'celebrity' and displays of wealth). We replace real knowledge about who has expertise with the letters following a person's name, or the uniform they wear or the jargon they use. This approach would have worked well in small communities because the status would still be correlated with expertise and easily tested for. The master blacksmith was so regarded because everyone could see he could do his job well.

But, in our society today, status is mostly awarded, or claimed for, without our being able to observe whether a person really has expertise before we employ them. Because we have become an appearance culture, instead of a knowledge culture, the badge is now more important to people than the knowledge or skill that the badge was originally intended to denote. We are faced with the fact that, because somebody has qualifications in architecture, or law, or medicine, it does not mean they are a competent architect, lawyer or doctor.[77] And if someone appears to have great wealth, it does not mean they have actually earned it. (He may have inherited it, or be a conman.) This causes great problems.

If a person wants psychotherapeutic help for a family member suffering depression, status will often determine which professional or organisation is approached. Someone might think that the Tavistock Clinic in London is the place to go, because it enjoys high status within the NHS. Yet the main type of therapies practised at the Tavistock derive from the arid theories of psychoanalysis and are not helpful for depressed people, as they tend to deepen and prolong depression.[78] But how can a member of the general public know that? The Tavistock Clinic's perceived status in this case is no guide to expertise and effectiveness. Unless someone points out to them that 'the emperor has no clothes' the only two ways to find out are either by trial and error, which is usually costly, or by becoming an expert in the field themselves.

The system of badges of status leaves us at the mercy of one another — as much as our ancestors were at the mercy of those hungry predators in the wild. (The lists of the victims of pension fund scandals, the people Dr Shipman killed or of people wrongly convicted because of incompetent lawyers or judges, are enough to illustrate the point.)

Our first line of protection is to recognise that the possession of symbols of status does not automatically denote expertise. We must intelligently question whatever is done on a case-by-case basis whenever it is practical to do so. The common-sense rule is: it is always what people do that counts, not what they say they can do. Once it is widely understood that status is not correlated to expertise it is possible to look for better criteria by which we can ascertain people's abilities. We should find objective proof — real evidence — that a particular person has the expertise they claim. Recourse to litigation when things go wrong is not a reasonable course of action.

We cannot afford to accept any longer the simplistic notion that, if somebody claims, or is given, 'status', they have expertise. The fact that someone decides to go into politics, for example, does not make them competent to run a country, conduct a war in our name or make alliances with other countries which could undermine our ability to operate freely and flexibly.

We have all been through the teaching system and know that there are some teachers who are naturally talented and inspiring communicators. We also know that there are some with far higher academic qualifications, who are walking disasters. So, to reform the way our children are taught, we would need to assess expertise and choose the right people to be trained to be teachers in the first place. The same is true of psychologists, psychiatrists, architects, builders, solicitors, judges and accountants. The increasing emphasis on academic ability, when inappropriate — another instance of straight-line thinking — over natural talent and practical experience exacerbates the problem.

The academicization of the nursing profession, for example, means that on an eighteen month course a student nurse can spend less than an hour and a half on learning about taking a patient's blood pressure and temperature and a whole afternoon studying poverty in Russia.[79] Nurses now are taught very little anatomy in their courses, and the importance of hygiene and how to make sure patients don't get bed sores is given a low priority.[80] As one sister described it, many new nurses emerge from their theoretical training courses picturing life in the hospital, "at a computer or with a doctor on his rounds. They are horrified to discover that 90% of the time is doing things for patients."[81] This is a terrible indictment of nursing colleges since the main purpose of nursing is to do for the sick what they cannot do for themselves; it is a very 'hands-on', caring activity.

Likewise, half of the doctors in this country now are unhappy in their career choice because their work does not challenge them in a satisfying way, nor does it meet their needs.[82] Their unhappiness adversely affects their patients.[83] Some lack crucial competencies. Doing well academically at medical school does not itself confer the interpersonal intelligence necessary to be a good doctor.

A similar dilemma now applies in policing. In the 1960s, for ideological reasons, politicians decided that police forces should no longer have authority resting on "the broad basis of the consent and active cooperation of all law-abiding people",[84] preventing crime just by being visibly embedded in the community ('bobbies on the street'), but should mainly react to crime after it has happened. Policing has now become a largely desk-bound bureaucracy that takes its authority from the Home Office. Just as many nurses have lost touch with the needs of patients, many policemen, snowed under with paperwork, have lost touch with the concept of serving the community more informally.[85]

We need to stimulate enlightened self-interest by recreating a consciousness of vocation. A sense of vocation involves the idea of service and young people should be encouraged to consider these three questions: What are my talents and abilities? How can I best develop them? And in what role can I put them to the service of the community?

In the same way that exercising our bodies keeps us physically healthy, it is a given that the human brain thrives only when it is being put to good use. People who stretch themselves, develop their mental abilities and make a contribution to society are, on average, physically healthier and emotionally happier.[86] We need to shift consciousness away from 'How can I get from others?' to 'How can I serve others?'

We daily see examples of politicians all over the world, driven to appear busy, dreaming up harebrained schemes in committee rooms in the hope that they will improve the running of their country. If they get elected, they can institute such schemes in ways that significantly affect us all. This is no different from someone with little knowledge of cooking making up random recipes and getting other people to eat the disgusting result (as the story we recounted in our opening pages described).[87] They do not often admit that what they are proposing is experimental, yet there is no meaningful comeback when it goes wrong. All they do is blame anything or anyone but themselves rather than admit to experimentation and try to learn and do better next time. (This costs taxpayers £billions.[88]) Because political parties operate from ideologies — straight-line thinking again — politicians find it hard to objectively consider whether what they are doing will really help more people to get their needs met (which really is the only reason for employing them).

Their problem, and consequently ours, is that without an organic analysis, based on the givens of human nature, sound knowledge and large enough organising ideas, any change our political parties try to bring into being is likely to fail. And not only fail, but make things worse. We see this in the running of the railway system, the utilities, the social services, the NHS, the postal services, the education system and so on.

BACK TO TOP                                                                  Read On >>