Excessive Reliance on Experts is Toxic

You Don't Need an Expert to Know 2+2=4

Now I'm not denying expertise and expert knowledge as such, and we will talk of it later. However, there's not just an expert knowledge but also a common knowledge, and it seems it's becoming increasingly uncommon, and that's problematic.

Again, you don't have to be an architect to know that roof is falling, a mathematician - to know that 2+2=4, a meteorologist - to know it's raining. All of it is a basic common knowledge and basic observations.

Yet it seems most people in the West had lost any common knowledge, same as an ability to observe and think logically, and it's highly problematic. Indeed, most people now need an ‘expert’ to tell them literally everything, because they themselves became so dumb and ignorant that they know literally nothing.

That's a huge problem indeed, and I believe it's exactly this extreme Western ignorance and excessive reliance on experts due to this ignorance which enabled both COVID and climate scams.

But what are the reasons for this extreme Western ignorance? First of all, it's obviously our education failure. When our universities teach our kids such radical and actually unscientific Woke crap as Critical Race Theory or Queer Theory instead of an actual knowledge, no wonder that all college students became extremely ignorant and dumb but very politically active though (a very dangerous combo actually!) Because we have an indoctrination in place of education now.

Multidisciplinary Approach vs Narrow Expertise

However, dumbing down of Western population started before Woke crap came to our schools, and there's one more very serious problem in our education which existed long before Woke. This problem is a very narrow focus of Western education at the expense multidisciplinary approach which was used in Russian education, for example.

I believe that multidisciplinary approach is objectively far better than just one field expertise. You see, people trained to be experts in only one field are completely ignorant about literally everything else, and that's a problem. That is, IT genius might be completely ignorant of history and biology, while biologist - of any social sciences.

Not only their ignorance is a huge problem on its own, it creates problems in their own field for them as well because all fields are interconnected. That is, in order to be a political scientist, you need to know also psychology, sociology, history and economics. One politics isn't enough. Similarly, a climate scientist needs to know geography, geology, biology, physics and chemistry, not just meteorology. But very narrow Western expertise prevents students from learning all the disciplines connected to their main discipline properly which actually decreases the quality of their expertise.

And ofc, being a multidisciplinary expert is cool on its own. It allows you to make informed opinions about almost everything without an excessive reliance on experts (who might be corrupt or incompetent) - because you yourself is an expert in all fields, Jack-of-all-Trades! In addition, learning different, often not connected fields of knowledge allows you to develop your brain much better overall, to connect different parts of your brain and to become a smarter person overall.

But it's impossible to learn everything, some people would argue, we're just humans, not superhuman! Well, I'm not saying we should learn literally all the disciplines on Master's level, but we certainly can learn more than one discipline - two or three.

And we can have at least a basic knowledge in other ones - for example, I was taught many those basic things in my Russian school, and it seems Western people didn't learn these basic things somehow, and I wonder why. Again, you don't have to do a rocket science or a calculus if you're historian, but you must know that 2+2=4 though, or that trees absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen (it's called photosynthesis). The problem is that most Western people don't know even that anymore!

We need to return multidisciplinary education in our schools ASAP and to have a comprehensive curriculum which would allow us to be really intelligent people instead of ignorant one-field ‘experts’!

Expertise isn't Just Degrees or Official ‘Qualifications’

In the beginning of this article I mentioned that I don't deny expertise as such. However, I do believe that expert knowledge isn't gained just in the universities, but there are multiple ways to gain it. Excessive reliance just on academic expertise is highly problematic, especially taking into account extreme corruption and ideological capture of our academy.

Living Experience as an Expertise

Which are other ways to gain an expertise? Well, sometimes it's just a living experience! For example, I do believe that my living experience of a Russian and of a gay man in a way makes me an expert on Russian reality and homosexuality.

Think of it. I know Russian language from birth and hence have an access to all Russian inside sources Western people can't access. I observed Russian life, customs and culture for decades and hence have more knowledge of it than most Western people as well. Also, I learned Russian literature and history more excessively than Western people did.

Again, I don't claim that Western people can't learn anything about Russia - they surely can, but they have multiple disadvantages there like not knowing Russian language to begin with. Similarly, I'm not saying that every Russian is an ultimate authority on Russia - they also might be relatively ignorant or biased. But I'm saying that in general Russians know more on Russian reality than Westerners even if there could be some ignorant Russians or knowledgeable Westerners. But in general, Russians do have an advantage here which might even be called an expertise.

Same with gays. As a gay man, I do know what is it to be sexually and romantically attracted to other men instead of women on my own experience unlike straight people. Hence, I might be considered an expert on all things gay, more than any straight people who are ‘researching homosexuality' but never experienced same-sex attraction themselves.

Another problem here is a prejudice, Russophobic or homophobic one. Many Western people, especially Europeans, are prejudiced against Russia and Russians hence even if they start researching it, their Russophobic prejudice will cloud their perspective. Similarly with homophobic prejudice of many straight people, especially of religious conservatives or Woke queer and trans radicals (who are also homophobic, ironically).

But aren't Russians prejudiced in favor of Russia or gays in favor of homosexuality, some people would argue? I don't think you could call it like that. I can't be prejudiced in favor of Russia or homosexuality because they're part of me, and you can be prejudiced against or in favor only of something which is not a part of you. That's very important but not many people realize it sadly.

So, overall Russians and gays are more knowledgeable on something which is a part of them.

I focused on Russia and homosexuality because these are parts of my experience but any living experience could be an expertise. Being a native speaker of certain language makes you an expert on this language even if you're not a language professor. Living in a certain place or country for long already makes you an expert on it even if you weren't born in this country or place. And so on.

Don't forget also of self-education, hobbies and other practical learning. For example, an amateur golf player could still be an expert in golf even if he isn't a professional player. Or being a history nerd, I might know a lot of historical facts even if I'm not a historian.

Overall, to dismiss all these kinds of expertise as ‘amateur’ and hence ‘not trustworthy’ and trust only in academic expertise is not that smart and very problematic. Smart people learn from everything. Dumb people shut themselves from a factual knowledge if it comes not from a ‘trustworthy source’.