Expert opinions are traditionally priced at dime a dozen, but an internet-induced expert explosion has caused wolrd-wide rates to plummet. Rumor has it that an entire internet expert (and not just his opinions) can now be bought for the price of a beer and a bagel.

(Personally speaking, I’d ignore an expert who drank beer with his bagels, but I am a Texas girl, and I don’t have much experience with bagels.

Texas girls do, however, receive considerable education on the topic of beer. In fact, we might be called experts on the subject, if you weren’t too particular about the meaning of the word “expert”, which brings us neatly out of this aside and back to our topic. Ahem.)

Neuroscience is booming, and the market is responding with a wealth of brain-training devices, games and methods, all endorsed by various experts.

But what makes an expert’s opinion expert? Do credentials matter, or does experience? How do you decide which expert to listen to? (After all, experts are notoriously contrary, and two rarely agree on a single opinion, especially where beer is involved. )

Scientific American Mind’s Yvonne Raley offers some good guidance in the June/July issue. Since I’m feeling a bit lazy today, I thought I’d borrow her bullet points, rather than starting from scratch.

Qualifying Hard-Core Experts _________________________

So What makes any old expert an expert worth listening to?

1. Relevant Expertise

“An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less.” - Nicholas Butler

Humorous on the surface, Butler’s comment is funny because it is true. An expert isn’t someone with great and broad life experience or even a lot of smarts — an expert has specific knowledge and experience in a narrow field.

No matter how smart a quantum physicist may be, he is not an expert in neuroscience. A well educated and respected theologian is not an expert in evolutionary biology. A celebrity bagel chef is not an expert in nutrition for aging elders.

Seems like a no-brainer, doesn’t it? But irrelevant appeals to authority are probably the most common misplaced claim to expert status.

2. Neutral/Impartial Approach

People (even really smart and otherwise ethical people) are not good at separating their opinions from their vested interests; we’re naturally biased creatures, and this affects our judgement. It doesn’t nullify an experts opinions, but it means they need to be looked at with more skepticism. For instance, an expert in hypnosis develops and markets their own hypnosis software system, their opinions on the effectiveness of hypnosis (and their particular methods) are no longer impartial. Investments can be financial or emotional, and again… they don’t invalidate expert opinion, but they do make them less reliable.

3. Bona Fides

A reliable expert will be officially and verifiably recognized in their field of knowledge; the claims have to stand up to a background check.

• Experts should have a degree *in their specialty* from an accredited university. The more established and respected the school, the better, and if the university is known for a top flight program in that field, even better.
• A qualified expert will usually have affiliations with *impartial* and recognized institutions and associations in their field - universities, research institutes, professional associations, etc…. with the emphasis on *impartial*. Many self-proclaimed experts fake or exagerate affiliations, others go so far as to start their own institutes and affiliations. The institute lends them credibility, they lend the institute credibility, and .. tada. Instant (questionable) expert.
• Publication is another standard for assessing an expert’s credentials, but all published articles and lectures are not not created equal; peer-reviewed articles in scientific or professional journals are the most reliable indicators. The rules of quality, relevance and impartiality still apply. Having a website, blog, or even a book by a mainstream publisher and appearances increases public visibility, but doesn’t assure that the individual is knowledgable in their claimed area of expertise.

Life-Qualified “Soft” Experts
_________________________

But what about people who don’t meet those standards? Can’t they be experts in their own way? Do we have to value credentials over wisdom and life experience?

In the SciAm Mind article, Raley addresses these often sticky issues by designating experts as “hard” or “soft”.

A hard expert is someone who can clearly be evaluated by the criteria above: relevant education, respect from others in their feild, and so on.

A soft expert is someone with related knowledge or experience, but who may not be qualified to give professional advice on the subject. For instance, a minister, hospice nurse, or counselor might offer advice in a medical situation which involved moral choices or psychological stress; a decisions about a family member in a vegetative state, an unexpected pregnancy, an organ transplant, for example. The medical advice itself is outside of their qualified area of expertise, but they may still have good information they can add to the equation.

Judging a soft-expert isn’t all that different from judging a hard-expert. The same basic criteria apply, with a few changes.

1. Relevant *Experience*

With a soft expert, the relevancy of their experience is more likely to matter than their education or work-field. How similar is their experience to the situation we’re facing? Do they share our assumptions about moral, ethical, and religious views? How much similiar experience do they have, and how many others in related situations have they had contact with?

2. Open-Minded Approach

True neutrality is less likely in a soft expert, but it’s still important that they be somewhat open-minded. Is the person capable of setting aside their own often strong feelings, to support whatever conclusions you may come to? Do they have a powerful emotional investment in their own view that may override conflicting ideas or needs? Are they financially invested in the outcome of your decision? Are they part of a related political movement, more interested in converting you to their cause, than offering unbiased advice?

3. Check Their Story

Checking bona fides on a soft-expert is a bit tricky; they may quickly admit to not have any credentials or references. But if they’re published, is it by a reputable publishing house with high standards, or a a print-on-demand work, or something in between? Self-publishing no longer carries the stigma it once did, but it requires no peer review or fact checking, and there’s no well-heeled publisher to sue if the info turns out to be wrong or dangerous. The same goes of websites and blogs — are they part of a network of sites that holds its members to standards? If it’s a blog, or email list, do they allow and answer critical comments?

You can usually check on their affiliations and reputation fairly easily. Do they belong to organizations in their area of interest? Do others respect and follow their advice, on and offline?

At the least, make sure the person offering advice is who they say they are, and that they actually have the experiences they claim. Some unscrupulous people invent or borrow stories to back up their positions, gain sympathy and credibility. Imagine struggling with the decision of a family member in a persistent vegetative state mentioned earlier, turning to an online support group, being influenced by the opinions of its members, only to later discover several members had invented their experiences. Check up on stories and identities as much as possible.

The advice from a soft-expert should not outweigh the opinions of a qualified hard-expert, nor should it outweigh your own opinions, but since soft advice may *influence* your eventual decision, the source of even the most casually presented authoritative opinion needs to be assessed.

So, To Review:
_________________________

Expert opinions should be reviewed for:

• Relevancy
• Neutrality
• Education/Degree
• Relevant Associations
• Peer-Reviewed Publications/Peer-Offered Respect

Not meeting these standards doesn’t invalidate an opinion, but it does make it less “expert”, and therefor worth a bit less than the aforementioned beer and bagel.

And while you may be tired of hearing about said beer and bagel, I should still be congratulated on my restraint. Afterall, I made it through the entire soft vs hard-boiled metaphor without lowering myself to the over-easy eggspert puns.

__________________________

MindTWEAK: The modern world bombards us daily with a wealth of information on countless subjects; as a result, we know less and less about more and more. Countering the information overload means consulting more experts. Learning to judge those experts, how to value or devalue their opinions, is crucial.

It’s either that… or you can start tossing coins at every opportunity, an idea which, admittedly, has its charms.
__________________________