People used to "trust the experts". Less so after COVID. We've woken up to the fact that the people in positions of authority often have ulterior motives, and generally didn't get into those positions because they were good at finding out the truth, or moral and honest about sharing it accurately.
Most people are not good at discernment. When someone says "don't do your own research" I consider that correct for the broad audience. Most people are not qualified to do their own research. What they should instead do is find people who are, and then trust what those people say... that is... find and follow the experts. But importantly, YOU choose the experts. Because naughty "experts" will try to get you to chose them. That includes (however) both social media personalities as well as government shysters.
So how can you choose the right experts? And/or how can you find out if you are better served by being your own expert?
Most of it is based on personality.
1. High Openness -- without this, people simply don't bother looking into alternative explanations. They stick to one story and are not open to questioning it.
2. Low Agreeableness -- without this, people too easily accept wrong information from their peer group.
3. High Conscientiousness -- without this, people don't bother to do their own research deeply enough.
4. Low neuroticism -- less important, but emotional instability can cloud judgement
5. High IQ -- less important, but higher IQ improves the capacity to come to correct conclusions.
People with these traits naturally choose to carefully cultivate their understanding over time. They choose to avoid lying, even for their own benefit, because the corrupting nature of lies corrupts their most precious asset - their own understanding. They generally strongly defend free speech, and engage in debate with people of differing opinions.
If you are one of these people, by all means do your own research.
If you are not (and most people are not) then find several people who are and listen to them.
Even as I do my own research, I follow a number of "social media influencers" who I consider to have these traits and who I get much information from. They may well be wrong on some things, but they are less likely wrong.
I have 4 out of 5 of the traits (I'm neurotic). When I argue with someone, it's pretty obvious where they stand on these traits and whether or not I can take their worldview as reasonably accurate.
Michael Malice's podcast today with Bret Weinstein (the intro, I haven't listened to it yet) led me to post this.
Mike Dilger ☑️ /
npub1ac…9p35c
2025-05-29 01:25:24
Author Public Key
npub1acg6thl5psv62405rljzkj8spesceyfz2c32udakc2ak0dmvfeyse9p35cPublished at
2025-05-29 01:25:24Event JSON
{
"id": "da0caa1c7637004ec3eb36a8b5b221610141d792eb1ea6b2bfdb6b8efd0ddfef",
"pubkey": "ee11a5dff40c19a555f41fe42b48f00e618c91225622ae37b6c2bb67b76c4e49",
"created_at": 1748481924,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "People used to \"trust the experts\". Less so after COVID. We've woken up to the fact that the people in positions of authority often have ulterior motives, and generally didn't get into those positions because they were good at finding out the truth, or moral and honest about sharing it accurately.\n\nMost people are not good at discernment. When someone says \"don't do your own research\" I consider that correct for the broad audience. Most people are not qualified to do their own research. What they should instead do is find people who are, and then trust what those people say... that is... find and follow the experts. But importantly, YOU choose the experts. Because naughty \"experts\" will try to get you to chose them. That includes (however) both social media personalities as well as government shysters.\n\nSo how can you choose the right experts? And/or how can you find out if you are better served by being your own expert? \n\nMost of it is based on personality.\n\n1. High Openness -- without this, people simply don't bother looking into alternative explanations. They stick to one story and are not open to questioning it.\n2. Low Agreeableness -- without this, people too easily accept wrong information from their peer group.\n3. High Conscientiousness -- without this, people don't bother to do their own research deeply enough.\n4. Low neuroticism -- less important, but emotional instability can cloud judgement\n5. High IQ -- less important, but higher IQ improves the capacity to come to correct conclusions.\n\nPeople with these traits naturally choose to carefully cultivate their understanding over time. They choose to avoid lying, even for their own benefit, because the corrupting nature of lies corrupts their most precious asset - their own understanding. They generally strongly defend free speech, and engage in debate with people of differing opinions.\n\nIf you are one of these people, by all means do your own research.\n\nIf you are not (and most people are not) then find several people who are and listen to them.\n\nEven as I do my own research, I follow a number of \"social media influencers\" who I consider to have these traits and who I get much information from. They may well be wrong on some things, but they are less likely wrong.\n\nI have 4 out of 5 of the traits (I'm neurotic). When I argue with someone, it's pretty obvious where they stand on these traits and whether or not I can take their worldview as reasonably accurate.\n\nMichael Malice's podcast today with Bret Weinstein (the intro, I haven't listened to it yet) led me to post this.",
"sig": "adda1229f6a74e14eacbbc7e5ef2af30a16b3b40fb0afe2f624e80ae5ee163fca4f730e4d7030665559d1210dee0ae2ba4fe4799ed0a97789a5a44ff2cf924f3"
}