The Tyranny of Experts
codexjourneys.com
codexjourneys.com
This can be simplified to, "It's difficult to reach an audience." The meaning is exactly the same.
> Leonardo da Vinci
Was an expert in his fields at the time. He spent many many hours studying anatomy and nature.
> Galileo
Also an expert.
> Einstein
Probably the most over-used and incorrect example used by people who want to trot out the "lone under-appreciated genius" trope. The whole "patent clerk revolutionizes physics" notion is peculiarly attractive to western culture. Unfortunately, the actual truth is, "brilliant man who attended university, diligently studied the hardest mathematics of the day, and took a job while he spent years working on just a couple of problems in one field."
> More often, academics seem to be rewarded for incremental breakthroughs, not out-of-paradigm thinking.
Subject hobbyists consistently underestimate the value of incremental improvement in science. Most of scientific and technological progress comes in the way of incremental improvements. "Great leaps" usually only happen after a sufficient number of incremental improvements have made them possible.
> But ridicule has a higher volume today
You're not likely to be thrown in prison for believing something contrary to the religious faith of the day, like Galileo was. Who cares what happens on social media?
> It’s a tough choice: Even if you’re right, you may be ridiculed and discredited
That's why you have to do the work to prove you're right, instead of just claiming you are and then being unhappy when other people challenge your notions.
There is a real danger in counting yourself among the persecuted and reading only casually about historical heroes of scientific and technological progress. You can end up with a very distorted view of how progress works.
>Was an expert in his fields at the time. He spent many many hours studying anatomy and nature.
Yes, but he didn't have an advanced degree in those fields. And he didn't need one. That was more my point (which perhaps I could have made more clearly): We use a lot of over-credentialing and job-titling to filter who is taken seriously in contributing to certain fields, especially in the sciences. Other fields, like software development or entrepreneurship, have much lower barriers to entry and see more disruptive innovation and change, which leads to faster progress.
Having spent about 9 years becoming an expert in risk management, I have credentials, but they have very little to do with my actual ability to do the job or not. And having too many people with similar backgrounds in a room (or an industry) can lead to insular thinking.
Maybe I'll write a follow-up post about this. Thank you for your comment. And an especially good point re: Galileo. You're right.