There is the study she mentioned where people 'offload' their thinking to an expert.
Personally I don't think that her inferences from the study are meaningful. If you wander into a doctor surgery, have some tests and then some serious mega expert has to get involved then that is very different to the situation where you are openly seeking advice with your finances from an expert.
The financial expert is likely to profit from advice given whereas (in the UK) the medical expert actually wants you to get well. Furthermore if the expert is thrust upon you due to circumstance that is very different to seeking out an expert. The value of an expert opinion also differs depending upon how deferential one is. Doctors are as good as it gets for 'pillars of society' whereas financial experts are down there with used car salesmen. Conclusions drawn from those seeking financial expertise don't relate to the wider field of what goes on with 'experts'.
I have read books by Noreena Hertz in the past, expecting Naomi Klein 'No Logo' grade stuff yet I never felt her work quite hit the mark. In my opinion she was to the anti-globalisation discussion what Cliff Richard was to rock 'n' roll - not really the real deal. Again, this article disappoints.
whereas (in the UK) the medical expert actually wants you to get well.
Yes, sort of. For example, sometimes when a tooth can be repaired via root canal treatment dentists simply advise to remove it. It seems that NHS pays them roughly the same for both procedures, so they don't want to spend extra time working on it (quick find here, surely there might be better references available http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1385407/Are-NHS-de...). The point I'm trying to make is that even in the UK one should not trust doctors 100%.
I don't think the article makes a good case. The argument seems to be that we shouldn't trust experts and should do our own independent decision-making and research.
I guess it's hard to say that this is wrong, but experts are experts for a reason: It requires a lot of time and knowledge. So on average you should not expect to make a better decision than an expert in the field. Of course, when it comes to your health it may still be worth it to invest the time to understand as best you can and check the experts as much as possible.
But anyway, it makes perfect sense and is (I think) a good thing that people's brains offload thinking when consulting an expert. This does make you more likely to be fooled by someone who isn't really an expert (which is why we rely on reputation mechanisms and other signals to identify experts), but it means you can save your brain cycles for the things that you are an expert in. Comparative advantage.
David H. Feedman wrote an excellent book* on this very topic. "Wrong: Why experts keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them"
He goes very deep into the research around confirmation bias and cultural beliefs that cause doctors to be very confident and believe they are absolutely right when they are at best 50/50. Obviously not all experts/doctors are rightly only 50% of the time, but I found the book to be extremely informative. ALWAYS question experts - the worst thing you can do is shut your brain down.
Agree with the point that to defer to expert opinion may not always be the best choice. But in the case of one's health, sometimes it's not simply by "doing one's own research" that will solve one's problem.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...
There is the study she mentioned where people 'offload' their thinking to an expert.
Personally I don't think that her inferences from the study are meaningful. If you wander into a doctor surgery, have some tests and then some serious mega expert has to get involved then that is very different to the situation where you are openly seeking advice with your finances from an expert.
The financial expert is likely to profit from advice given whereas (in the UK) the medical expert actually wants you to get well. Furthermore if the expert is thrust upon you due to circumstance that is very different to seeking out an expert. The value of an expert opinion also differs depending upon how deferential one is. Doctors are as good as it gets for 'pillars of society' whereas financial experts are down there with used car salesmen. Conclusions drawn from those seeking financial expertise don't relate to the wider field of what goes on with 'experts'.
I have read books by Noreena Hertz in the past, expecting Naomi Klein 'No Logo' grade stuff yet I never felt her work quite hit the mark. In my opinion she was to the anti-globalisation discussion what Cliff Richard was to rock 'n' roll - not really the real deal. Again, this article disappoints.