Some Thoughts on Authority

In a comment on my post, "How Can I Believe You?",

Tracy Gustilo

mentioned that experienced readers develop a sense for when an author or a speaker's claims are well-supported. I agree that this is something I have experienced as well, but I'm a bit wary all the same. For example, I have some background in science, but I suspect not enough to be able to judge whether Lee Smolin's theories are the type of resolution to the field's current impasse that some claim them to be. Or whether Eric Weinstein is onto something with his criticism of String Theorists (much less his theory of Geometric Unity!). I don't know enough to really be able to tell, when someone who has more technical vocabulary than I do and a lot of confidence, makes a claim.

There are some additional clues in a person's demeanor, that can tip you off to the likelihood they aren't as incontrovertibly right in their opinions as they'd like you to think they are. One obvious sign is when they don't let a critic make his or her point. Cutting people off or trying to talk over them is always a bad sign. And of course ad hominem reactions are huge red flags. But what if someone is calm and collected? Or if you only hear their side of the story, in a controlled environment? I suspect in these cases confidence goes a long way to support their credibility.

One of the things an agent once told me (over a dozen years ago when I thought I might like to publish a "real" book) was that he would be happy to read any proposal I sent him for fiction. But if I wanted to pitch a non-fiction book to him, first I would have to convince him I had a "platform". That's interesting, I thought. What's a platform?

Turns out, it's a validation that I ought to be taken seriously on a particular topic. That I am credible and what I say should be taken seriously. Often, this is due to a credential (same Latin root, credo: I believe) such as a PhD. And in fact, it was after talking to the agent that I enrolled in the PhD program at UMass. In other cases, it can be based on experience or long-term practice of particular skills. This is why veterans or cabinetmakers can teach others what they have discovered in their fields. Often, these people can also abstract from their own fields to say something about the general human condition. For example, when Jocko Willink went on Eric Weinstein's Portal podcast, he had some very interesting insights to share, from his military experience, about balance and appreciating both sides of a dichotomy rather than choosing either-or.

But I have to ask myself, why do I find Willink credible when he says that type of thing? Is it because he seems to speak in a reasonable, measured way that I have come to associate with authority? Is it because his conclusions appeal to me? Is it because he has received a sort of validation by being invited onto the Portal after the likes of Werner Herzog and Roger Penrose?

In any case, what are some "Do and Don't"s I should keep in mind, as I try to build a platform for my ideas and attract readers, listeners, and viewers? First, I should probably try to "stick to my knitting" and avoid speaking authoritatively about topics on which I'm not an expert. I think it's just fine to ask questions about topics I don't completely understand. Not snarky, gotcha types of questions that are actually statements, but honest inquiries designed to help me learn. In fact, I distrust people who never admit they are inexpert in a field or seek to expand their understanding. This is actually something I think Joe Rogan seems to do well (I assume he's sincere; if not, it's a great act!). Weinstein will also frequently prompt his conversation partner, "Say more", rather than assuming he knows what they mean. I think this inspires confidence.

I tend to tell little stories about my background, when I want to establish my place in a conversation. What I've read or where I've been or what I've done. For example, if I offer an opinion about the crisis in Higher Ed, people will better understand where I'm coming from if they know what I've been doing for the past decade. If I express a preference for farm-grown meat rather than CAFO, it may be more interesting and might carry more weight if people know I have not only studied environmental history and agricultural economics, but I've also raised my own chickens and turkeys -- both commercial hybrids and heritage breeds.

I do think it's valuable to learn from people with practical experience doing things. I do believe in expertise. Yes, there are also types of academic expertise I respect. Especially the type that can lead to testable predictions. I also like it when people have some skin in the game (with apologies to Taleb). And I like it when people can be succinct. Having said that, I think I'll close.