“They.” Who are “they?”

Every so often, I think I unconsciously outsource my thinking to “experts.” I have, on occasion, used the phrase, “they say…” Have you ever said that? I am reminded of this song by Jem. I like Jem’s questions in the chorus: 

· Who are they?

· Where are they?

· How can they possibly know all this?

Let’s imagine someone says, “they say…” regarding something that matters to you. What do you do? Do you accept the mystical “they say” at face value? My guess is that none of you take “they” statements at face value, but how do you separate the wheat from the chaff for things you care about? I think it is an interesting exercise to run “they” statements through the “Jem test.”

Who are they?

This is a relevant question to assessing a statement led with “they say…” Who are they? The answer to this question allows us to assess the “expert’s” qualifications, and perhaps their character and reputation. This assumes, however, “they” can be identified. My experience is that far too often common wisdom has no discernible source. Let me posit that this is not the “wisdom” upon which we should base critical decisions.

Where are they?

Perhaps “where” they are is less important than the other two questions. But, if we morph that question into where have they been practicing their “expert-ness?” This angle really is an extension of the first question, who are they? A common source of experts is academia. Some have acquired their “expert-ness” from a lifetime of study and practice outside academia. Others lay claim to “expert-ness” through less legitimate means, and would not stand up to scrutiny.
 

Another element of where they practice their “expert-ness” speaks to their motivations. It is worth knowing how said experts get paid. I do not believe that if someone is paid to produce their “wisdom” it is inherently flawed. However, there are times where conflicts arise, so as you vet conventional wisdom it is helpful to know where the expert in question’s motivations come from.

How can they possibly know all this?

I like this question best. Assuming we have been able to answer the first two Jem questions, we can now have a deeper look at the claims they make to see if they are worthy of our credence. The more transparent an expert is about the aspects of their work that are (at present) unknowable the more I want to hear what this person has to say. This world is complex. Few things have a Newtonian quality that orders everything and makes it perfectly predictable. New discoveries in science can shrink the space of what was considered unknowable, but again many things are so complex that to suggest a physics-like predictability undermines the credibility of the expert. This leads us to assumptions. Most experts use models to simplify an complex problem. Models require assumptions to simplify things so that we can get an intuitive, while not perfectly accurate, view of a given problem or question. Knowing what assumptions have been made can give you a better sense of the limits of an expert’s conclusions in your own decision making. In short, not everything is knowable. When “they” assert incontrovertible facts in answer to very complex questions “they” are not the experts you want to trust in making decisions that matter to you.
 

One might say, “I am not qualified to assess ‘experts’ claims.” I definitely feel this one. It is hard. Some problems are possibly out of the grasp of the layperson. However, when one applies the lens of “how important is this to me” then it may be worth investing the time and effort to learn how to assess the validity of certain claims, even if at a high level. I have spent years practicing statistics and critical reasoning skills as important tools to develop my own reasoned assessment of “how can they possibly know all this?” My statistics comment may be a cue for all two of you reading this to make a beeline for the exit. But, before you go, let me recommend two resources that are so accessible and practical that they almost make statistics “fun.” How to Lie With Statistics and Naked Statistics are very readable and accessible books that teach solid statistics and help to develop an intuitive sense of whether the claims made by “experts” are solid. On the critical reasoning front, I love The Philosopher’s Toolkit produced by the The Great Courses. But, even if you are not up for that investment of time, just being aware of the underpinnings of a claim can allow you to “follow your gut” better. 

Finally, we cannot use the “Jem test” for everything. It is not worth it. But, for important decisions I would hope that you and I can be more thoughtful, even cogitative.