On Opposing Intellectual Authority
First off, I don’t necessarily think I’m the target audience here. I believe conspiratorial thinking can go too far, and I think RFK is wrong about a lot of things. Still, I want to break down my thoughts on his larger arguments about opposition to intellectual authority.
The Importance of Open Discourse
I want the right ideas to rise to the top. I don’t think we can get to objectively right ideas without large, open, public discourse. One downside is that we will inevitably get bad or objectively wrong ideas presented in a way that makes them sound “right.” People will latch onto these ideas if they bolster their existing worldview.
Because of that, we’ll inevitably have discourse about every decision deemed “mainstream,” even if that mainstream opinion is so objectively true that it seems wild to actually debate it.
The Challenge of Ensuring Good Information
This creates a problem: how do we get the right ideas out there and convince most people that they’re indeed the right ideas? A framework for objectively analyzing claims could help. Sites like Twitter have “Community Notes,” which may not solve the entire problem, but show us we can build tools to foster critical thinking online.
One large issue is what we do, and how we act, on ideas that come out of institutions. In politics, I think the biggest reason why people go against something objectively true often comes down to risk tolerance and personal preference.
Risk Tolerance and Trust in Institutions
When COVID first started, we knew almost nothing. Our risk tolerance to contracting it was low, and it seemed like the country united around the idea: “We don’t know what this could do; people are getting sick at an alarming rate, so let’s stay home and see what we learn.”
As time went on, it became clear that COVID wasn’t going to kill certain groups of people as frequently. Risk preferences changed. However, expert authorities didn’t just present the facts. They implemented policies and guidelines that “forced” a particular risk tolerance on the American people, which many did not agree with.
That began a downfall of trust in these institutions. I don’t think Sam Harris would disagree with this. The core reason people are hesitant to “trust the experts” is tied to risk tolerance. It’s one thing to see guidelines or findings from the CDC and make your own decision; it’s another when you’re forced to follow restrictions that don’t align with your personal comfort level.
The Value of Doing Your Own Research
“Do your own research” isn’t just a way to find facts that fit your biases. It can be more than that. We have facts we trust experts to put out, but how we respond to them is a personal decision. When experts tell you both the science (with low confidence intervals) and also demand actions like staying home or shutting down the economy, people feel taken aback. The decision to act on that information should be theirs.
We see this with public health policy in general. There’s a reluctance to admit that many epidemiological studies are flawed—not worthless, but weaker in their conclusions than other types of research. We’ve seen policies and legislation passed in response to these studies that later proved less than true (e.g., the war on fat). This not only removed consumer choice but also eroded trust in these institutions.
RFK, HHS, and the Centralized Authority Problem
As for RFK being head of HHS, is he the right person for the job? Probably not. His stance on MMR vaccines is objectively wrong. But nitpicking RFK misses the forest for the trees. We shouldn’t have a society that relies so heavily on getting the “right” person in a position of immense power. HHS should fund studies, make recommendations, and then leave it up to the American people, states, and smaller institutions to decide.
Americans should be able to choose which health agency’s guidelines they follow. Vinay Prasad made an excellent point: allowing parents to choose from various proven vaccine schedules (as used in other developed countries) would satisfy Americans’ need for autonomy and reduce the pressure to take a harsh anti-vax stance if they disagree with current guidelines.
Reducing Forced Dichotomies
We live in a country where everything becomes a forced dichotomy. If you don’t agree with the CDC’s vax schedule, you’re lumped in with the anti-vax crowd. If you avoid seed oils, you’re labeled anti-science. Let people make their own decisions. Give them all the information as best you can, and don’t force them to follow decisions based on information that’s not beyond reasonable doubt.
Rebuilding Trust in Experts and Institutions
To restore trust in experts and institutions, we need to pull back their ability to have such a pervasive effect on individuals’ lives. Let them excel at what they do best: conducting research that requires insanely specialized knowledge. Then let those who are good at disseminating that information do so. Cut back on policy-making power tied directly to these experts’ findings. What sours people’s opinions of experts isn’t the data they produce, it’s their ability to force a certain risk tolerance onto everyone else.
Again, Sam Harris did the thing where he talks about a problem, but leaves the solutions lacking. I agree that we should have some level of trust in institutions, we cannot except everyone to become an expert on everything. But don’t ignore personal preference on risk tolerance, I believe that is truly what people care about the most in these situations. Telling them they’re not qualified to make a decision about their own risk tolerances will do nothing but harm the institutions further.