The “do your own research” types end up with some of the biggest groupthink I’ve ever seen though.
Skepticism also seems to be reduced because we're armored against people telling us lies in their own self interest and against ours, while AI will make stuff up that benefits no one. (And even where it could benefit someone, people assume the AI isn't trying to benefit itself).
Neither qualifies as thinking for yourself.
She put flat earth, reptilians and queen had diana killed on the same level. I guess gladio too?
I mean kings historically have had lots of people killed. Certainly I can't know if that's what happened, but it's at least possible (unlike flat earth).
Also she didn't take questions from the audience, in the spirit of science.
Of course, you also have to identify which experts are trustworthy. This is an important skill to have.
A non-expert must rely on at least two things to do this. The first are external signals, like financial associations and a record of making unpopular criticisms (but without being a contrarian or aiming for sensationalism), as well as reputational factors (not popularity, but a reputation for making strong cases).
The second is the basic coherence of their claims. If they make remarks that contradict basic reality, then this is not a good sign.
And of course, you have to be prudential and recognize your own limits.
These are probabilistic, naturally, and there is an expected divergence of opinion here, even between what you thought yesterday and what you think today.
The past few years have been a veritable parade of experts saying inaccurate things, and/or being proven hilariously wrong in a variety of domains. I'm not saying that this isn't a hard problem -- it is -- but the fact is that "expert" is not a get-out-of-thinking-free card. It is, at best, a slightly higher weighted input amongst all others.
They hold more weight than the average person, but it doesn't make them right by default.