Hacker News Reader

Comment by ska | Hacker News Reader

> ...by definition, because they wanted to appear on TV or in the media

I suspect this misses some nuance; there is a meaningful difference between people who appear on the media because they want exposure, and people who do it because they want their field of study to be well represented.

For example there are people to accept interviews when they genuinely dislike the process, because they felt it was a duty that came along with their chair, etc. I doubt these are ever the most dynamic interviews, but they are common.

I agree this doesn't really extend to the level of the same old bobble heads pulled up on prime time news TV, but don't thing you can paint all of the media exposure with this brush.

View on HN

I think that comes down to self-proclaimed experts vs experts as decided by their peers.

Many of the people I met who were considered experts and had a vast depth of knowledge never referred to themselves as experts and seemed do get embarrassed at the idea.

Whereas, i've met several self-proclaimed experts who liked to talk a lot about how great they were, but never really showed the depths of knowledge the other kind of experts showed.

At least from my experiences anyway in life.

Peer incentives and desires can also be skewed / wrong. Just because there's some kind of consensus doesn't mean the conclusion is correct.

Is it better to have the right framework but come to the wrong conclusion (for now), or is it better to reach the true conclusion with the wrong framework or basis? I guess it depends on timeline.

> I think that comes down to self-proclaimed experts vs experts as decided by their peers.

I think the correct criterion is neither of these: it's whether the expert can back up their expertise with models that have a good predictive track record. That's the real test of whether they actually know what they are talking about vs. just blowing smoke. Unfortunately, this criterion is hardly ever applied that I can see.

I see it as a spectrum, where to be an "expert" you need to both skilled in the field and a good communicator/politician.

The problem is, in those areas where there's not a tight feedback loop as mentioned in the article, it's possible to build your way to the top by just being somewhat skilful in the field and knowing how to appear confident, and how to (over)sell your work, and knowing when something is technically right but you should not say it because politics. And on your way to the top you're going to out-compete those that are very skilful on the field, but don't have such good communication abilities.

I agree with this. Let's say for example you are one of the world's leading immunologists when a global pandemic breaks out. Going on TV because you "by definition want to appear on TV" is tautological, you could say that about anything on the list. A leading expert may see that they have a responsibility help lead the public, it's perfectly possible that want for media attention for personal fame is completely irrelevant. Want for media attention to help guide the course of a pandemic to a safer path qualifies as "because they wanted to appear on TV," but the GP reads uncharitably.

I don't see how 'disliking the process' equates to 'not benefitting from the outcome'.

I dislike interviews, but I like having a job.

Well, since many of these "experts" are professors with tenure they can't really lose their job nor readily increase their salary. They might be able to more easily get funding for their research/students from nontraditional sources (e.g. industry grants), but many of them would not, because they value the estimation of their peers which might be (rightfully) hurt. Not all or even a majority even care about money or they wouldn't have chosen the profession. Some of this has changed with startup board positions, industry coalition funding, and academic promotional departments, but not quickly.

All of that goes out the door with pundits and shills, who don't just appear once, but have chosen the field for fame/fortune... and for those who have largely chosen to sell their research topics/results for profit. However, those are relatively easy to spot by most viewers and journalists who care.

There isn't any direct benefit for many of the people I had in mind.

Indirect benefits are harder to evaluate and will be nature involve a bunch of hand waving, but there is a huge difference between say holding a research chair, and having a consulting business as an "available expert".

> I suspect this misses some nuance; there is a meaningful difference between people who appear on the media because they want exposure, and people who do it because they want their field of study to be well represented.

I don't think there is a meaningful difference. First, I don't believe people can make choices in any kind of isolation. If you believe you are making a choice without your ego involved, you have simply deceived yourself. Congrats, you have a high functioning ego. Second, even if they could, audiences are not capable of concluding with any reasonable certainty which is motivating someone appearing on television. I don't mean that derisively, like people are stupid, I mean it is essentially beyond humans to do this.

IMO, in the absence of actionable information, it is pointless to speculate. Basically, you cannot know it so it's not worth thinking about.

I think I see your point - from the point of the viewer it's impossible to tell why someone has agreed to be interviewed.

I guess my hypothesis is that you get better information from people whose reason for agreeing to interviews is not self promotion. If true, that's actionable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com