In my view, what we need is not so much reliable data or information, but rather a reliable way to direct our biased perspective toward identifying the flaws in our own convictions.
3 Likes
How can you verify such wealth is the result of their strategies and not a result of inheritance, or other means of pre-existing money that could be managed? Or just pure luck by someone who managed to score the timing on the gambling side of the stock or cryptomarket?
Most finance influencers online, but also the already successful are not giving any advice that is actually working, otherwise everyone would have become wealthy. While the influencers use their spotlight to sell courses and grow their wealth further on the backs of desperate people seeking advice, the ”real” wealthy people are just part of a survivor’s bias the world has about them; we see them and think they did something right, but we’re not seeing any of the failures of others or the avoided pitfalls they dodged on sheer luck, only the result detached from context.
And another case point against it is all the GameStop shenanigans which started on Reddit. The ones who gamed the market and got more wealthy than many professional traders… on the same premise that much of the stock market operates—gambling.
You say you’re a truth seeker, but just attributing ”truth” to a millionaire over a Reddit user based purely on the result is a serious flaw for the purpose of truth.
The world is filled with people who can do that, quite easily.
Just ask them.
I usually call them undeclared prophets of God.
This isn’t complicated. Between a millionaire and a broke Redditor, or a grandmaster and a low-tier player, I’ll take the person with a track record every time. If you can’t win yourself, you won’t be able to teach me how to win.
Sure, I take people with inherited wealth like Donald Trump with a grain of salt. And in cases like Dan Bilzerian, where it’s obvious the money isn’t a result of his own doing, I don’t take his advice at all.
Why do you take any single person’s advice and not rather a consensus or collective evaluation result? How do you evaluate the quality of a single person’s advice, regardless of their status? Especially if an advice or opinion from them aren’t considered established and verified?
1 Like
But I think it is more complicated. How do we know who has a legitimate track record? This is not necessarily clear. We can easily mistake success for expertise. There is always the problem of attribution. Con artists often cultivate the art of looking successful so the problem isn’t a choice between some reddit cocksucker and a millionaire, it’s how do we determine who is a legitimate purveyor of advice and this goes to the heart of the question what are the key indicators of expertise?
You’re right that success alone doesn’t automatically prove expertise, but that doesn’t undermine my point it actually strengthens it. Obviously, you don’t blindly trust someone just because they’re wealthy or successful; you examine whether their success is real, relevant, repeatable, and attributable to the methods they’re recommending. Can their results be independently verified? Did they consistently achieve them? Can they explain the process that produced them? Do they actually make sense or something is lacking?
Life isn’t that simple, but it isn’t complicated either. You can’t always know in advance who is genuinely competent or whose advice will work you have to evaluate the available evidence, make a judgment, and sometimes be wrong. The important thing is to learn from the outcomes and update your judgment rather than pretending you can eliminate uncertainty completely.
Sure, I guess my point is that if we are going to cite expertise as an important source, then we need to set out what counts as expertise, since the world is saturated with experts and self-appointed authorities who often have enormous influence and cause harm. It’s not clear to many people how to go about determining whose advice will be useful. I count myself in thsi category.
This is an age old objection against expertise. MDs or physicians are experts by earning this distinction through education and licensing.
1 Like
No it isn’t, although such fake ‘experts’ do exist. Most experts have earned that moniker by training, education, and experience.
For example, I am an expert in software design. [ There are many other such experts in my profession, and my expert opinions do not invalidate theirs. That’s how it works, I think? ]
But please don’t expect my expertise to make my opinions outside of software design any more valuable than those of any NON-expert. That’s how it works, I think?
1 Like
Critically examining our convictions won’t rescue us from false information. True clarity requires reliable data
if the information we’re using is false or unreliable, critically examining our convictions can still lead us to the wrong conclusion
I guess we disagree on this then. 
And they aren’t necessarily fake, just the usual plethora of wankers who charge for their opinions and advice. The immense industry of experts, specialists, and strategists for hire in health, law, heritage architecture, community policy, psychosocial safety, work cover insurance, advocacy, and strategic growth is among the largest industries there is. I deal with a lot of them on a regular basis.
And you can’t really tell who is legit until after the report comes back. And much of the time, it’s a series of motherhood statements and clichés. Not fake, not terrible, just another case of banal “cut-and-paste” expertise that isn’t worth a shit and can set back all your work to date.
I’m not saying you should trust people 100% of the time, so I agree with you. But when you need advice on a subject, would you trust a random person or an expert who has spent years studying it and has the qualifications or proof to demonstrate their expertise? The existence of fake experts doesn’t mean you should choose random people over experts.
1 Like
Aren’t you asking me a question about my previous reply to you, this reply is about a different matter from Pattern?
I’m pretty sure I’ve already agreed with the idea that expertise is better than no expertise in most instances. But you still haven’t answered the more important question of what makes someone an expert.
A while ago you made the point that it is better to get money advice from a millionaire than a broke Reddit wanker. I don’t know if this is accurate. Being a millionaire is not expertise. It doesn’t tell you anything about skill or integrity. It could even be the case that the Reddit wanker has better advice.
So how do we determine expertise? It isn’t simply a track record of doing something successfully. That’s the superficial first step.
No one has made this point, and I don’t know why you would make it. The salient issue is: how do we choose an expert among other experts?
Actually, you’re talking about a general skill: the ability to distinguish between experts and determine who is actually more reliable.It requires judgment, critical thinking, recognizing competence, comparing track records, understanding the relevant field, and knowing what evidence actually matters
and of course the willing to be wrong because you won’t pick the best experts from the first time
No, this is a specialised skill and people struggle to do it well. Generally (in my experience) it’s word of mouth and good references that may settle the matter. That, and the price.
But it depends on what kind of expertise we’re talking about, right? Selecting a mechanic for a Jaguar XJ-S V12 is a different, more practical task than selecting an expert advocacy consultant to launch a social justice campaign aimed at changing local government legislation.
Ok, but you’re now talking about a process, and that doesn’t really answer the question of what attributes you’re looking for. To say selection requires judgement, critical thinking and recognising competence doesn’t really advance the case. What is it that your judgement, your critical thinking and your recognition of competence are seeking to identify?
In your work, how often have you had to select an expert, what process do you use, and what do you look for?
Perhaps sometimes. But experts are expensive and often you only have one shot at getting something right. There might be a lot at stake.
But given this is a philosophy site, a better question might be: which experts do we take notice of when determining whether idealism provides an adequate account of the nature of reality? I’d have to say, I’m fucked if I know.
All true. And yet, no individual can know about everything, so we have to trust someone… 
Sure do. And I do too. I’d hate to inhabit a world with no experts.
2 Likes
Great, and let us not forget that NO one trusts “unreliable sources”.
Let us not forget that the term and phrase “unreliable source” is highly subjective, and that the biggest threat to humankind may well be ‘subjectivity’ itself.
See, what you consider as ‘an unreliable source’ differs very widely from what another considers as 'an unreliable source. So, which is an ‘unreliable’ and an ‘unreliable’ source, exactly?
Obviously, until unanimous agreement is reached, humankind could be destined for destruction, annihilation, and/or extinction.
I am not sure how you can hear ‘a tone’ when all that is before you are printed words on a screen.
I suggest reading from an open perspective and not a closed, narrowed, prejudicial, or presuming perspective.
And, I can let you know the reasons why I put specific words in quotes if you would like to know.
I found when people really want to know things, then they ask questions, for clarity sake.
But you seem to be missing the point that ‘disinformation’, to you, is ‘information’ to another, and what is ‘information’, to you, is ‘disinformation’ to another.
So, when you say that “disinformation is leading people to ignore or handwave issues like climate change”, which “side” are you speaking from, exactly?
People see “sides” here, and people on both perceived “sides” can say the exact same thing that you just have.
So, what you are essentially saying here is that what you, personally, perceive as ‘a problem’ is a ‘genuine problem’.
Are you aware that others do not see what you see?
And, what you see as a ‘genuine problem’ others do not see as any problem at all, and vice versa.
Why not?
If lying, to you, is neither necessarily smart nor stupid, then why not advocate for lying?
‘Closer correlation with intelligence’ compared to ‘what’, exactly?
If you say so, then okay.
What would that matter? If lying is neither smart nor stupid, to you, what does it matter if and when you are being lied to or if and when you lie to others, exactly?
Have you yet learned full critical thinking skills?
So,
you make a claim.
I just ask you some clarifying questions about ‘your claim’.
you do not provide any answers nor clarification at all, but ‘I’ am the one now claimed to be ‘deliberately obtuse’.
If you are not able to explain or clarify ‘your claims’, then who is ‘the one’ who is so-called “obtuse”, exactly?
OBVIOUSLY, ‘your claim’ that "in the real world ‘objectivity’ is not recognised, realised, nor known is your own personal subjective view and claim.
OBVIOUSLY, ‘your claim’ is NOT an objective view and claim.
Why not just be open and honest and answer directly, instead of being “so obtuse” here?
If you were not so “obtuse”, and answered Honestly, then could fathom and follow. And so on, for the rest of my post.
you have shown and proved that you do not know the commonly-used- and -accepted definitions of words that are common in philosophical discourse.
Imagine not knowing whether ones own view and claim is a ‘subjective one’ or an ‘objective one’.
Also, imagine mentioning and talking about some so-called ‘real world’, but when asked to just explain and clarify what you are talking about, you are not able to provide any clarification at all. Thus, showing that you are unaware of any used definition, let alone the so-called ‘commonly used and accepted definition’, which is ‘common in philosophical discourse’.
‘We’ will soon see.
EVERY human being is/was unaware of some things, and that you ‘currently’ cannot imagine such a thing never ever means that ‘that thing’ does not exist.
Now, there is ‘a way’ to ‘look at’ and ‘see’ ‘Reality’ Itself, as It actually is.