Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 11:26 PM
I received the following e-mail query today:
What I am wondering is; how did you become an expert in your field? I understand that you obviously went to college and probably got all sorts of degrees but how did you know when you were an expert in your field of knowledge?... So did you get all of your knowledge from your research while in school, or do you just read a large amount of books on whatever interests you?
This is one of those questions that sounds incredibly simplistic and yet is impossible to answer in a pithy manner.
I mean, sure, I got a few degrees. And I suppose getting a Ph.D. allows you to call yourself an expert over a very limited domain of knowledge. In truth, however, I've met many, many people with doctorates who are truly quite dim about great many things (important safety tip: never buy a book from someone who puts "Ph.D." after their name in a book). I'm dim about a spectacular number of things. So even expertise is quite limited in its domain.
That said, how does one become an expert without going to the Dagobah system? There's no one way and there's no one answer. Here are ten ways to acquire expertise about world politics (WARNING: does not necessarily apply to other fields of knowledge):
1) Go to school. There are people out there who are self-taught wunderkinds, capable of long, brilliant disquisitions about the intricacies of international relations after reading Thucydides just once. There's a 99% chance that you are not one of these people. For you and almost everyone else, the path to expertise is paved through college and graduate school. So go forth and take courses on these subjects.
2) Read a lot. I mean, read a whole damn lot. Don't just read the books and articles that are assigned to you in class. Read the stuff that you notice popping up repeatedly in the footnotes and bibliographies of your assigned reading. Read the classics. Read cutting edge work. Read anything that seems of value. When you get to the point where you think you're seeing recurring arguments, then you're approaching the cusp of expertise.
3) Read a newspaper every day and a magazine every week. World politics and current events are intertwined. The more you read about daily events, the larger your mental database of interesting events that can be used as raw data when considering various puzzles in world politics.
4) Hang around smart people. Anyone who's been to graduate school knows that the best education comes from your peers. While the image of the lonely, eccentric, brlliant grad student is a compelling narrative, it's also much more common in film than in real life. You can pick up an awful lot from osmosis by hanging around smart people.
5) Never be afraid to ask a question that betrays your ignorance. One of the smartest political scientists I ever met told me that if I didn't understand a concept or presentation, odds were good that the majority of other people in the room didn't understand either. People who don't ask questions don't learn anything.
6) Walk the earth. You know, like Cain in Kung Fu. As recent events suggest, there is an appalling lack of knowledge about how politics function in other countries. If you can develop a good working knowledge of another country's language/culture/polity, then you can claim a relative amount of expertise.
7) Get a job. There are oceans of knowledge that cannot be acquired via books, coursework, or peers. Michael Polanyi labeled these kinds of knowledge as "tacit" - they have to be experienced to be learned. In world politics, sometimes the best way to learn is to do.
8) Grow older. Aging doesn't have a lot of upside, but one of the benefits is that you've probably done a lot more of items 1-7 than those young whippersnappers people younger than you. Expertise has a relative quality to it, and as you grow older, you're likely to have more of it than younger generations.
9) Recognize your limits. True experts don't just know a lot -- they are also aware of the vast oceans of knowledge that they don't know.
10) Quit reading blogs. They rot your brain and give you cooties.
Cate Gillon/Getty Images
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 1:53 PM
Yesterday The Lancet retracted a controversial 1998 study that linked a British vaccine for measles/mumps/rubella to the onset of autism. This comes on the heels of multiple scientific studies that have failed to replicate the 1998 study's results, as well as the revelation that the paper's lead author, Andrew Wakefield, had failed to disclose commercial conflicts of interest.
So, this should put an end to the whole debate then, right? Well, New York Times reporter Gardiner Harris gets some quotes that suggest otherwise.
the retraction may do little to tarnish Dr. Wakefield’s reputation among parents’ groups in the United States. Despite a wealth of scientific studies that have failed to find any link between vaccines and autism, the parents fervently believe that their children’s mental problems resulted from vaccinations....
Jim Moody, a director of SafeMinds, a parents’ group that advances the notion the vaccines cause autism, said the retraction would strengthen Dr. Wakefield’s credibility with many parents.
“Attacking scientists and attacking doctors is dangerous,” he said. “This is about suppressing research, and it will fuel the controversy by bringing it all up again.”
Unfortunately, Moody's statement does seem to evoke Drezner's Eleventh Commandment of Policy Wonks. Activists will argue that this is an example of Big Science suppressing counterintuitive research. And in a public battle between the Jenny McCarthy/Oprah media-industrial complex and a bunch of science nerds, I'm putting my money on Mustard Girl. And I'm not the only one.
In my prior research, I've seen this kind of dynamic play out in the debates over genetically modified foods, and we're still seeing it play out in the debate over climate change. Furthermore, because scientists are not perfect., it's becoming easier to point out flaws that don't necessarily compromise the basic science but do tarnish the image of scientists as neutral arbiters of fact.
To be fair, it's true that individual scientists aren't really completely neutral -- especially when it comes to politicized debates. The scientific method, on the other hand, is about as neutral as you can get. But that's not as sexy a sell to the public.
Question to readers: is there a way to make scientific consensus more acceptable to a public that doesn't want to hear the results?
Friday, September 12, 2008 - 2:54 AM
The acclaim for the vice presidential nominee is all but deafening within the GOP, except in one small but influential corner: the party’s foreign policy establishment. Among that mandarin class, the response to Palin’s nomination has been underwhelming, marked by distinctly faint praise or flat-out silence.Having chatted with a few members of this mandarin class, I would describe the range of opinion about Palin's foreign policy bona fides as varying from "underwhelmed" to "you gotta be f#$%ing kidding me?" What's really disturbing, however, is this Bob Kagan quote:
“I don’t take this elite foreign policy view that only this anointed class knows everything about the world," he said. "I’m not generally impressed that they are better judges of American foreign policy experience than those who have Palin’s experience.”This is one of those head-scratching comments when the only question is whether Kagan is being completely cynical or whether he actually believes that expertise is irrelevant. Given the GOP attack line just three weeks ago was about Obama's inexperience, and given that Bob goes to the trouble of writing and researching actual books, I have to go with cynical. Question to other GOP policy wonks: is it possible to support a candidate that campaigns on the notion that expertise is simply irrelevant? UPDATE: In the comments, I'm seeing variations on the argument that Palin has as much foreign policy experience as Clinton or Bush did when they were elected. One could quibble a bit with that, but it's not really the point. The point is this: foreign policy issues were not terribly important in either the 1992 nor 2000 elections. Regardless of one's views of the candidates, does anyone seriously believe that the strategic environment in either 1992 or 2000 is akin to the situation we face today?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 3:36 PM
Signs of progress in Iraq have left America’s top foreign-policy experts experiencing a rare sensation: optimism. For the first time, the national security establishment appears more positive about the war in Iraq, U.S. efforts in fighting global terrorist networks, and the security of the United States and its people. But these experts are increasingly critical of the U.S. government's approach to the world—from Iran and Pakistan to U.S. energy policy and addressing failed states.Well, you didn't expect optimism about everything, did you? Click here to access all of the data. Be forewarned, however -- like Groucho Marx, I don't completely trust any group of experts that includes me as a member.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More