Kind: captions
Language: en
People tell us to trust the experts, but
do they actually know what's best?
Remember when doctors said that smoking
was healthy? More doctors smoke camels
than any other cigarette or that we
absolutely had to invade Iraq because
for a fact they have weapons of mass
destruction. And Iraq's behavior show
that Sodom Hussein and his regime are
concealing their efforts to produce more
weapons of mass destruction. How about
CO or Gaza vaccinations? What about the
food pyramid? I've never recovered from
finding out that the food pyramid was a
scam. What would you do if you got
diagnosed with cancer? Eat only apples?
Go keto? Take chemo? In a world full of
misinformation, who do you trust? Have
you been to the crossing points? No.
You've never been? Well, I'm not Am I
not allowed to talk about it now? That's
what we're going to explore. This is
what I call the problem with experts and
it's definitely not what most people
think. Experts come in many flavors.
Academics, PhDs, doctors, researchers,
politicians, professionals, and the
like. We all specialize, and most of us
consider ourselves an expert in some
area. Most of us have also had the
hilarious yet almost offensive
experience of someone who knows
absolutely nothing about our area of
expertise spouting nonsense as if it
were fact. But by the end of this video,
I hope to convince you that clutching
your pearls and telling the no nothing
idiot to shut up is far more dangerous
than the spreading of misinformation
will ever be. Wish me luck. Despite
having lived through co history has
proven that kind of blatant manipulation
is the norm, not the anomaly. Once you
see the pattern, you can't unsee it.
Elites rule the world and expertise is
the weapon they use to enforce
conformity. Use less water, eat less
meat, social distance, avoid fat. too
big to fail. Stay vaccinated, stay woke,
stay at home, and the list goes on. We
have to recognize that history proves
that in times of crisis, experts don't
just help remedy the situation. They use
the crisis to consolidate power and
enforce compliance. And yet, and yet, we
have a crushing need for expertise. No
one should want to live in a world
without it. We should want more of it,
not less. But it has a dangerous side
effect we have to avoid and a shocking
cure we must use to inoculate ourselves
from To understand what's
really going on, we've got to walk
carefully through four big ideas. Now,
make sure you listen to them all as I've
definitely saved the best for last. Part
one, the long history of mental slavery.
History proves there's an immutable law
of human nature. Most people hate change
and they will literally kill to stop it.
Case in point, Socrates. He had the
youth of his day questioning too many
traditional beliefs. The elites of
Athens wouldn't stand for it, so they
sentenced him to death for quote unquote
corrupting the youth. His real crime,
though, was making the experts look
stupid in public. Galileo was the same.
He had the balls to say that the Earth
wasn't the center of the universe. Now,
that seems so ridiculous to our modern
ears, that's obvious, but the man was
sentenced to house arrest for the rest
of his life for noting the fact that the
Earth revolves around the sun and not
the other way. But it was an
inconvenient fact that the Catholic
Church didn't like and they were
powerful enough to enforce scientific
consensus. Seems impossible to imagine
now, but there was a time the Catholic
Church actually controlled science. What
could go wrong, right? Thomas was
one of the first people to notice this
pattern of the elite class crushing
descent with the use of experts.
noted that in science, progress doesn't
happen linearly. It comes in big
spasming paradigm shifts. And every time
the old guard resists with everything
they've got, not because they have
superior experimental evidence. Nope.
Because their worldview is cemented in
place by institutions, reputations, and
their very identity. And that's the
trap. Even two-time Nobel Prize winners
aren't immune. Lionus Pauling noticed
that high doses of vitamin C seem to
prevent or treat colds, flu, and
possibly even cancer. The reaction from
the medical establishment, mockery,
dismissal, attempts to discredit. Even
openly biased studies were rushed out to
try to silence him. But decades later,
peer-reviewed research began confirming
the vitamin C does indeed have
therapeutic benefits, particularly in
immune response, something most people
take for granted today. But pulling
wasn't a crank. He was just too early
for the comfort of the established
orthodoxy. This one is a real banger.
Barry Marshall claimed ulcers were
caused by bacteria. In keeping with
human nature, he was told to shut up and
sit down. but instead he drank the
bacteria he believed caused ulcers,
giving himself an ulcer, but then he
cured the ulcer by killing the bacteria.
Gangster move. But should it really be
that hard to get people's
attention? Actually, think about that
for a second. Step outside of the
narrative that I'm building ever so
briefly and look back from the outside.
I'm going to answer that question
directly at the end, but I want you to
have your answer formulated as well. And
while you think about that, let me tell
you where this all began for me. I
started thinking about the problem with
experts when Sam Harris went viral for
saying real experts are much more
reliable than frauds or people who are
not experts. And the idea finally
formalized in my mind when Douglas
Murray and Dave Smith collided on the
now infamous episode of Joe Rogan.
People have appointed themselves experts
who are not experts. Sam and Douglas are
both people that I respect tremendously.
But in these moments, they fell prey to
a dangerous cognitive error. one that
Socrates warned about when he was on
trial for his life. He said, "The only
true wisdom is knowing that you know
nothing." The continued paradox at the
heart of the problem with experts is
that Sam and Douglas know a tremendous
amount. They are indeed experts. And
yet, like virtually all experts before
them, they have become so convinced by
their rightness that they fall into the
trap of wanting to enforce dogma rather
than debating ideas. Sam is convinced he
can so clearly see the outcome of
electing a given political candidate
that any amount of spin or manipulation
to get the right answer is justified.
And Douglas only wants to debate people
who are qualified. But that's like a
martial artist insisting that they only
fight people of their same discipline
when the reality of a real fight is that
there are no rules, only the truth of
combat. history shows us over and over
is that knowledge progresses in only one
way by challenges to the orthodoxy often
presented by outsiders soundly ridiculed
by the establishment. So how is it that
some experts don't pump their own brakes
when they hear themselves saying some
variant of I know I'm right because I'm
the expert. It is crazy to me given how
history has proven that this is a
terrible strategy. But there actually is
a reason for it. And honestly, virtually
all of us fall for it at one point or
another. So, welcome to part two.
Experts going to expert because that's
how God made them. It's quite possible
that outside of physics and math, truth
itself may be impossible to pin down.
When you really look at it, virtually
all of life comes down to perspective
and interpretation, not objective facts.
If you don't believe me, watch the
podcast where Jordan Peterson and Sam
Harris spend hours trying to define
what's true and fail to come to full
agreement. It really isn't as easy as it
sounds. The problem isn't that experts
don't know the truth. The problem isn't
even that they lie to get us to conform.
The problem is that they are incapable
of doing anything else. Humans simply
are not designed to see the truth. I
mean that literally. Whenever I think I
see something clearly, I remind myself
that humans can only see
0.0035% of the electromagnetic spectrum.
We are blind to virtually everything. We
just don't have the receptors to
perceive the truth. Yet, when I look out
at the world, I see it. It's all right
there, right? My brain tells me that
what I see is all there is to see. I
feel like an expert in viewing the
world. The illusion that I'm seeing
everything is so convincing that even in
the face of knowing I can only see some
tiny fraction of what's actually there
does nothing to break the illusion. I
still feel deep in my bones that I'm
seeing the world the way that it
actually is. But what I'm actually
seeing is a gross
oversimplification. My brain focuses my
attention on what it deems most
relevant, ignores much of what it does
see, and simply can't see the vast
majority of what's actually there. And
despite that, my brain hands me back the
signal that I understand the truth. The
whole truth and nothing but the truth of
the world. But the actual truth is that
my brain is lying to me. Perhaps with
good intentions, but the lie is
nonetheless the truth of what's
happening. It's lies as far as the eye
can see. It is lies all the way down.
This is exactly what I imagine is
happening when someone believes they
know who should be elected. It's what I
imagine is happening when an expert
rolls their eyes at someone who simply
hasn't studied the subject enough.
There's no doubt that I am literally an
expert at seeing the world compared to
somebody who's blind. But man, not by
much. They only see
0.0035% less than I do. And so it is
with experts. They act as if they see it
all. They may even believe they see it
all. But in reality, we're all nearly
blind, groping around in the dark trying
to make sense of things. And while if I
were blind, I would gladly put my hand
on the shoulder of someone with sight
because what a big difference that
0.0035% actually makes. But if I thought
I understood something about the world
that the person with sight didn't, I
would speak up and I sure as hell
wouldn't let them lead me off a cliff.
No matter how loudly they screamed,
"Trust me, I can
[Music]
see." It's important to remember that
for the human mind, capital T truth has
proven to be the pursuit of an
approximate direction, not a precise
destination. What we believe to be true
evolves constantly. Even Newton, who
many consider the smartest man to ever
live, got physics wrong and required
Einstein to move us forward. And we know
that Einstein is only directionally
correct because we still don't fully
understand quantum physics. The hard
truth is that feeling right is not the
same as being right. And even if you are
the single most right person of your
generation, the odds of your ideas
surviving the test of time are virtually
zero. Maybe one day AI will oneshot a
theory of everything. But until then,
we've got to focus on simply making
progress. And the way to make progress
isn't censorship. It's the scientific
method. And the scientific method is the
aggressive attempt to disprove something
and not the authoritarian insistence on
conforming to a narrative. I have no
doubt that many, if not most, experts
present their narratives in an effort to
be helpful. They are offering a hand to
all of our blind asses and offering to
help us navigate complicated problems.
Well, sure, their narratives are
simplified maps designed to help us
navigate extremely complex terrain. But
that's exactly what a map was prior to
apps. It's a simplified version of
reality that you can carry around to
avoid getting lost. If a map contained
all of reality, it would necessarily be
the size of Earth. So, the very value of
the map lies in its ability to simplify
the real world, right? We're all
genetically programmed to only see a
simplified version of reality, which
means we are perpetually wrong to some
degree. And more importantly, once you
intentionally simplify the simplified
things even further to fit a narrative,
you're making decisions. You're choosing
what to include and what to leave out.
And the resulting narratives can be used
to take believers and just generally
uncritical people anywhere you want. And
if you pair this reality with the next
part of my argument, you are going to
see that this goes ary very, very
quickly. Part three. Expertise is
secretly, not so secretly, a game of
control. For the most part, people
honestly don't care that they're being
lied to or even manipulated by the
expert class. They just want to fall in
love, make some money, raise their
families, and enjoy life. And if the
experts are lying to them, so what? Life
is pretty awesome. The problem is today
life is getting harder. Something is
wrong. Desperately wrong, and people can
feel it. Housing is out of reach.
Tuition has gotten outrageous. Deaths of
despair are driving life expectancy down
in the US. The global economy is shaky
at best. The rich are getting richer.
The poor are getting poorer. And for the
first time in a long time, kids are
doing worse than their parents. Now
people are starting to care about the
lies. Now they're starting to ask
questions. And now experts are having to
squeeze harder and harder to get people
to comply. It is creating a dangerous
feedback loop. The more questions people
ask, the more they're reminded they're
not the experts. The more people point
out the obvious agendas and blatant
consequences of bad policies, the more
they're told to shut up and stay in
their lane. This is exactly why Joe
Rogan is one of the most watched humans
on the planet and one of the most
attacked. He has too many questions and
he's not nearly expert enough for the
experts. He's spreading misinformation.
Or so people would have you believe. My
own YouTube comments accuse me of the
same thing. But it's not actually about
spreading misinformation. People don't
care about that. People can't even agree
on what the facts are. So, how would
anyone know what's actually
misinformation? The game here is
control. Whoever controls a narrative in
these turbulent times wins. Remember,
people use a crisis to consolidate
power. We have an evolutionary drive to
do that. Every animal seeks control.
Controlling your environment is exactly
how you stay alive. Humans are the apex
predator not because we're the strongest
or the fastest. We're the apex predator
because we are the most able to exert
control on our environment. We are so
pathologically obsessed with control,
we'll enslave anything, including other
humans. This impulse is so useful and
grotesque, it must be checked or tyranny
reigns. Despite the fact that the
founders of our country made freedom of
speech the very first enumerated right
in the constitution to specifically
protect us against the tyranny of
experts who think they know better. Over
the last few decades, people have come
out of the woodwork calling for
censorship. Freedom of speech is the
check on tyranny. And yet, former
Senator John Kerry captured the
sentiment of many in the expert class at
the 2024 World Economic Forum when he
described freedom of speech as a buzzsaw
that acted as a major block to combating
disinformation. Our first amendment
stands as a major block to the ability
to be able to just hammer it out of
existence. No matter how helpful an
expert hopes to be, the second you let
them gain control by warning against
things like corrupting use or
misinformation, you free them from
having to prove their ideas work and you
end up with tyranny. When Mao required
every region in China to plant the same
crops at the same time despite different
climates, was it misinformation to argue
that different crops grow better in
different places? It was treated as such
and millions starve to death. Science
isn't about consensus building. It's
about the organic emergence of consensus
due to repeated experimental proof. The
second you were trying to cram agreement
down people's throats, you're the bad
guy. You are overesteeming your site.
You're forgetting that you may not be
blind, but life is extremely complicated
and you can only see
0.0035% of what's there. Ironically,
truth must emerge from the process of
falsification, not be forced on people
from the top down. The people that want
control are almost always the last
people that should get it. Who's going
to determine what's misinformation? Is
it going to be the same people that
enrage the voting public by stealing
their future and making everything
impossibly expensive? That's certainly
who's standing up and demanding to be
listened to and history cries out from
the void. Let me tell you the story of
Ignes Semlowise, the guy who discovered
germ theory. In the mid 1800s,
Semowisee, a Hungarian doctor, made an
observation so simple, so undeniable, it
should have transformed medicine
overnight. But it didn't. At the time,
women were dying on mass from child bed
fever in hospitals. Two clinics in the
same building with the same conditions
had drastically different death rates.
One clinic had five times the death rate
of the other. Seml Weiss found out the
reason. The doctors in the high death
clinic were performing autopsies in the
morning and delivering babies in the
afternoon without washing their hands.
He tested his theory. He made the
doctors wash their hands with a special
solution before touching the patients.
The death rate plummeted, not dropped,
plummeted from over 10% to under 2%.
That should have been the moment that
the world changed, but it wasn't.
Instead, the other doctors, the real
experts, destroyed him. They rejected
his idea, mocked him, outright refused
to believe that they, doctors, experts,
men of science, could be the ones
killing their own patients. It was
offensive and far too disruptive to
their sense of self. Semaise was forced
out of medicine, black balled. He lost
his job, his reputation, eventually his
sanity. This guy actually died alone in
an insane asylum. It took 20 years, 20
years for the data to become so
overwhelming, so undeniable that even
the experts had to admit they were wrong
and handwashing finally became standard
practice. But after killing how many
people? Needless to say, I could give
you more examples. Countless, in fact.
CO, anyone? How about autism? I'm not
saying I know the answer or that anyone
does yet, but I am saying we should want
the answer no matter what it is. Humans
are prone to massive cognitive errors,
and the results can be dire. And we must
remember that experts are not neutral
arbiters of reality. They're humans,
flawed humans like all of us. They have
egos, careers, status to protect. And
when new truths threaten those things,
history shows us again and again that
many will choose death over humility.
Yours of course, not theirs. Hopefully,
all of this makes you say, "Yikes. Why
don't we just ditch the idea of experts
altogether?" May not be expecting me to
say this, but shockingly that would both
be dumb and impossible. Welcome to our
final chapter, part four, the iron law
of oligarchy. James Burnham explains the
presence and necessity of elites
primarily through the theory he outlines
in his incredible must-read book the
makave of defenders of freedom. While
one can argue that the concept of elites
sits slightly to the side of experts I
think it is the exact same phenomenon
just at different levels of society. But
from a human nature perspective they are
one and the same. Bernham's argument
goes like this. One oligarchy is
inevitable. Every society will be run by
a group of elites, namely small groups
of people who disproportionately hold
power and influence. Bernham argues this
isn't necessarily a result of corruption
or even conspiracy. It's just a natural
byproduct of organizational dynamics and
the very architecture of the human mind.
Why? Because of complexity and
specialization. Modern society is
amazing specifically because of
specialization in both knowledge and
skills. No one person can master every
essential area and few people would even
want to. Thus, decision-making power and
influence concentrate naturally into the
hands of those best positioned by skill,
ambition, or resources to handle this
complexity. Two, the concept of the
political class. Burnham expands on
Moska's idea of the ruling class,
asserting that society always divides
itself into two primary groups. One, the
ruling elite, a minority that
monopolizes control over key social
resources, political power, economic
capital, ideological institutions. And
two, the ruled majority, the masses who
lack direct power and largely just
follow or are guided by the elites
leadership. This division isn't morally
good or bad per se. It's simply
descriptive of a social reality.
According to Burnham, three, human
nature and power dynamics. Bernham
emphasizes that humans inherently strive
for power, influence, and security.
Because resources are finite, societies
naturally organize around competition
for power. The result is a hierarchy
where some inevitably rise above others
in status, capability, and influence. We
all have differing abilities and drives.
People don't have equal ambition, skill,
intelligence, or even the desire to
engage in the decision-making process.
Therefore, a small subset of driven,
hyper ambitious, connected, intelligent,
and sometimes capable individuals
inevitably rise to positions of
leadership and governance. Four, elites
are necessary for social stability. Now,
this one hurts, as I fear, despite my
protestations in this video, Burnham is
probably right when he says, "The
existence of an elite class isn't merely
inevitable. It's actually necessary." He
believes that without stable elites,
societies fall into chaos. First off,
they make decision-making way more
efficient. Elites offer rapid, cohesive
decision-making in a crisis. Despite
their temptation to consolidate power,
mass participation in every political
decision is quite literally impossible
if for no other reason than most people
will ignore the request most of the
time, even in a crisis. When was the
last time you went to a community board
meeting or even a local town hall? Yeah,
me. Like I said, most people just want
to live their lives. Second, elites
provide social cohesion and leadership.
Societies need direction, guidance,
vision, all of it. Elites offer this
leadership, constructing coherent
ideologies, and yes, narratives that
guide broader societal action. Five,
Bernham talks about realism over
idealism. Burnham critiques idealistic
or utopian visions like egalitarian
democracy or communism as fundamentally
unrealistic because they deny the
unrelentingly persistent reality of this
group of elites. You might be aiming for
utopia, but because humans are a
thousand times harder to herd than cats,
instead of utopia, you get Mao, Stalin,
and a whole lot of goologs. Burton
pushes back against childish utopian
fantasies of what ought to be but never
will be and instead promotes a
mchavelian realism that I think is
accurate. Societies should acknowledge
the necessity of elites openly,
understand how they function and
establish systems that constrain and
manage their power rather than
attempting to abolish it. He argues that
the best protection for individual
freedom isn't to try and eradicate the
existence of elites, which is
fundamentally impossible, but instead
society should endeavor to create a
dynamic set of competing elites that are
held accountable to results. Open
competition among elites prevents any
single group from monopolizing power and
leads to greater liberty and
transparency. In the age of social
media, I think this idea has a lot of
legs. This is why I absolutely loved
seeing Eric Weinstein sit down with
Terrence Howard. Terrence might be out
of his mind. He might be an artist who
has confused himself for a scientist,
but the reality is his ideas had gained
a lot of traction. They were dynamic and
exciting and made a lot of people feel
like we might be on the verge of
something big. If Eric had told Terrence
to sit down, shut up, and stick to
acting as so many people did, people
would have gotten more and more
interested in his ideas, not less.
People know they're being spun and lied
to constantly. They know they're being
sold to all the time and they no longer
trust authorities. That's the moment
we're living in. There's simply too many
cameras, too much visibility, too many
detailed records of historical lies for
people to just hand their thinking over
to experts once they're engaged in the
topic. By walking us all through point
by point why Terren's ideas were almost
entirely without merit. Eric helped
countless people shortcircuit the
evaluation process with his credibility.
But note that despite documenting his
bonafides, he didn't say just listen to
me because I'm an expert. He said
expertise matters. But he was willing to
show receipts and only ask that people
pay attention to the receipts regardless
who has them, him or Terrence. That to
me is the right move. Where do we go
from here? Now, if you think all of this
is much to do about nothing, I want to
leave you with one of the most chilling
conspiracy theories of just how far
elites that go unchecked will go to
manufacture consent. The sinking of the
Lucatania. You might have heard the
basic version. In 1915, a German yubot
torpedoes a British passenger ship,
1,200 dead, including 128 Americans. The
world is horrified, and it edges America
closer to World War I. But if you stop
there, you've only seen the magician.
You haven't noticed the slight of hand.
According to researcher and author G.
Edward Griffin, the Lucatania wasn't
just a civilian vessel. It was a baited
trap meant to draw America into World
War I. Despite being a passenger ship,
the Lucatania was retrofitted to look
and sound more like a military vessel to
German Ubot. It was then secretly loaded
with tons of war munitions, specifically
6 million rounds of rifle ammunition,
which the Brits denied, by the way,
until decades later when divers went
down to the wreck and confirmed the
munitions were on board, and it made it
impossible to keep the lie up anymore.
There's only so much speculation needed
here. The British Admiral T under the
leadership of Winston Churchill put in
writing that they wanted ships with US
passengers to be put at risk. An
internal memo revealed that Church Hill
saw an American tragedy as strategically
useful. The memo said, and I quote, "It
is most important to attract neutral
shipping to our shores in the hope
especially of embroiling the United
States with Germany." Even the Germans
knew that the British were likely
attempting something like this. And they
took out ads in American newspapers
warning potential passengers that any
ship sailing into a declared war zone,
especially one carrying munitions, could
justifiably be sunk. According to
Griffin, the US State Department,
presumably because they had economic
reasons to want the US to enter the war,
stopped most newspapers from running the
ads so that Americans would be none the
wiser. But one ad managed to slip
through, and that one ad ran next to the
Lucatania's departure schedule, warning
Americans not to take these ships. It
gets even crazier. The Lucatania's
escort ship was pulled back to shore at
the last second, leaving the Lucatania
alone in hostile waters. It could be
coincidence or just bad luck, but the
captain even received a lastminute
course change moving the ship towards
territory the British intelligence knew
from intercepted German communications
had yubot in it. And despite all of
that, the Lucatania was not only sent
into the danger zone. The captain was
given specific instructions to reduce
the speed. Was the sinking of the
Lucatania the result of terrible luck or
a terrifying conspiracy motivated by the
economic forces that Griffin outlines in
the incredible book The Creature from
Jackal Island? We may never know. But
after the sinking, the propaganda
machine went to work. And overnight,
public opinion flipped. The American
people previously hesitant about joining
the war were now inflamed. And within 2
years, the US entered World War I. Much
of Griffith's portrayal of events is
considered controversial by the
mainstream historians. I want to be very
clear about that. But given the verified
lies about munitions being on board and
an internal memo from Churchill saying
he wanted to use the ship as a way to
embroil the US of Germany and the fact
that the Lucatania was retrofitted. At a
minimum, it's very non-productive to
call people with questions conspiracy
theorists. It's important to note that
being a contrarian or believing in
conspiracies doesn't make you right. But
if history is any indication, it also
doesn't automatically make you wrong.
The scientific method reminds us all not
to get cocky. You may think you know,
but how can you be sure? The scientific
method doesn't say check your
credentials. It says check your
credentials at the door and run
experiments. If you want to win in life,
forget what you think you know and map
cause and effect. What actions lead to
the desired outcome? Do that. This is
where two and a half decades as an
entrepreneur has helped me. The market
has slapped me around. So many times
whatever arrogance I had in the
beginning was hammered out of me a long
time ago. I quickly realized that if I
actually wanted to succeed, I had to
focus obsessively on cause and effect. I
had to build a world view with high
predictive validity by trying things and
always updating my thinking when
something didn't work. I couldn't make
payroll if I doubled down when I was
wrong. Unlike experts who are often
playing a political game, the market
forces you to steer by results. Whether
in academia or outright in politics,
experts are best understood as being
engaged in a mchavelian pursuit of power
and status instead of competing in the
merit-based marketplace of ideas where
you have to demonstrate the ability to
deliver predictable desirable results.
Knowing who has firsthand experience is
always going to be incredibly useful. It
certainly increases their odds of being
right. Expertise is awesome. I am so
glad that the world is full of experts,
but they have to be checked. It's rarely
safe to abdicate your responsibility for
thinking for yourself. And when things
aren't adding up and someone plays the
expert card, pause. That means they're
out of arguments. They might be right.
And it might be wise to listen to them,
but you should do so because their ideas
are the most closely married to reality
as evidenced by the results they
deliver. Do your best to follow a chain
of logic. Seek out people that disagree
with you and map out their assumptions.
Everyone's ideas ride on the back of
base assumptions. If you can figure
those out, you'll have a much easier
time thinking through their position.
And if their base assumption is, because
I'm the expert, run. Anyone who tells
you to shut up and listen wants to
control you. Maybe they think it's to
your benefit, but nonetheless, control
is their game. One final note. While
appeals to authority have been used
throughout the ages to march people down
a road to hell, experts are a real
thing. Odds are you're an expert in
something and you know it matters. But
hopefully your expertise has also taught
you just how often smart people are
wrong. And hopefully you'll be wary of
people who are convinced they're right,
especially when the stakes are high.
Having shared facts and a shared reality
is important to a well functioning
society, but we have to get there by
battling our ideas out in the open. When
leaders try to force consensus by
decree, things go badly fast. When
consensus organically emerges through
the clash of titans, however, we all
win. Experts can be as brash and
arrogant as they want. That's not the
problem. They can even call the heretics
names. But when they conspire to silence
the heretics, we're in danger of history
repeating itself. Credibility is
ultimately what matters, not expertise.
Expertise is the finger pointing at the
moon. Proven ability over time is the
moon itself. But even the most capable
will be wrong. If they hunger for people
to challenge them, then we've got a real
one. If they want everyone else to sit
down and shut up, we've got a problem.
Conformity of thought inevitably stifles
innovation. And innovation is exactly
what makes the world a better place. Now
I know some people will say experts are
what we need and social media is the
problem. They'll say we were never meant
to live in an age where everyone has a
global voice. But the mechanism of
advancement remains the same. Guess,
test, learn, repeat. The only thing that
breaks that cycle of innovation is force
conformity and authoritarian rule. And
that's why in addition to everything
I've just said, I'll simply say this.
Don't judge a man by how strongly he
defends his position. Judge him by how
strongly he tries to deny you the
ability to defend yours. All right,
that's it. If you want to dive deeper
into my thinking and join me in pushing
these ideas forward, be sure to join me
for my lives. And until next time, my
friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace.