The Current State of Experts in Society: Distrust and its Causes
- williamdare2
- Jun 22, 2020
- 12 min read
My previous article on the WHO really sprang from this idea. I wanted to explore why we seem to distrust experts and official narratives more and more. It is not uncommon to see this attitude on podcasts, blogs and social media and even among our politicians (Looking at you Trump). It is a complicated issue, as blind faith in sources of information is a bad thing, no matter who it comes from. However, being overly cynical can lead to wrong, and sometimes dangerous conclusions, just consider the rise of climate change deniers and flat earthers. It is evident as well in America with the rejection of masks, quarantine, and social distancing.
Trust is the cornerstone of a functioning democracy, both in the sense that we shouldn’t allow demagogues and cynicism to undermine institutions that we need, and also in that these institutions and experts must be honest themselves so that we are not misled. It goes back the Enlightenment and the ever-growing importance of facts and proof in the decisions we make, and policies we enact. The deterioration of trust is a threat to our current way of life and is thus something that should be taken very seriously. It is often said that we live in a state of “Post Truth”, with politicians like Trump actively opposing and undermining what used to be considered reliable sources of information, such as journalists and scientists.
How Do We Determine Trustworthiness?
From the study “Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory” it is stated ““Both empirical and theoretical research indicates that trust in scientists should be based on not only their epistemic quality but also their moral integrity and the application of their work for the benefit of society”. In short, we base our trust not just on the level of knowledge and proof, but also how moral we perceive the expert to be, and to what extent their work seems to be a positive to society. Keep this in mind as we progress, as it is an interesting lens to view the topic.
There is also a condition of neutrality that we expect from our experts. This is a difficult standard to be held to as they are still human, and thus are largely incapable of removing all implicit bias. This does not mean that their conclusions are invalid, but if we suspect a speaker as having an agenda, we are less likely to believe them. One cannot help but be suspicious of others, especially those who purport to have authority over us.
It must be stated then that trustworthiness is complicated. It is not as simple as someone has information I don’t therefore I defer to their knowledge. This is important as we must also be curious and cynical to a degree so as not to be fooled. On the flipside though, we must be strong enough to acknowledge where we are ignorant and look for implicit bias within ourselves. What is considered moral to one person, or positive to society, will not be the same for another. Rising distrust can be a good thing if it is done in a healthy way. It can be a tool for us to educate ourselves and take power back from an elite which may well not have the peoples best interests at heart, but it can also be a weapon used to promote pseudoscience and/or reinforce the very elitism that it threatens.
I would argue that it is the morality part that is most commonly under fire; by making experts seem morally dubious and corrupt, their validity and trustworthiness is undermined. If experts are shown to have vested interests in distorting information, as we often see with climate scientists, their conclusions can be disregarded.
How prevalent is distrust of experts and elites?
I wanted to make a brief aside about this. It can often seem that distrust is on the rise. The number of climate change deniers, anti-vaccers and flat earthers seem to have exploded in the era of the internet. It is in actuality very difficult to measure this sort of thing. Katherine Dommett (Senior lecturer and Director of the Centre of Public Understanding of Politics, University of Sheffield) comments that there is simply insufficient evidence to support that Britain doesn’t trust experts (This comment was made in regards to Michael Goves infamous Britain has “had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying they what is best and getting it consistently wrong” statement). Dommett would also go on to say that surveys are not a great way to measure distrust. I think this is fair, surveys can only cast a net so wide, and levels of distrust are not static, varying over time and topic. This being said I will go on to use a couple surveys as they can help to give an insight, but should not be taken as cold hard fact. Overall surveys and studies do show that overall people tend to support experts, but there is still a substantial fringe who do not, and this is who this article is largely about. It can also be said that the era of post truth has had very real political and social ramifications, such as Brexit and the rise of trump (that is not to say it is the only factor however). The internet as well gives greater scope for denialists and sceptics to share and spread their views which is no doubt part of climate of distrust, both real and perceived.
Reasons for Distrust in Modern Society
Section 1 – The internet
The internet has been the greatest boon to the free spreading of information in history. Almost everyone has access to any information they want at the tap of a button. Whether that information is accurate or truthful, is suspect however. There is more data accessible to us than ever before, and when overloaded with information how do we decide what is true. Most people do not have the time or know-how to inspect and read every source used by a study or article, let alone scrutinise the writers for bias or flaws in their scientific method. There will be a plethora of takes on any given topic, with what seems like studies and facts to back it up. Go watch a flat earth video on YouTube (they are a lot of fun) and you will see someone pedalling pseudoscience that may seem convincing. If you do not have information to contradict, are susceptible to conspiracies or are firmly entrenched in an ideology it is easy to be taken in. US Navy Professor Tom Nichols has said “we live in a manic reinterpretation of democracy in which everyone must have a say”, and when everyone has a say, who do you listen to? Some of the reason for the distrust we see is the sheer amount of noise and information. We as humans, tend to dislike challenging our world views and implicit biases, and so will tend to find echo chambers and sources of information that reinforce these views. This information is often not vetted by the traditional gatekeepers of information; peer review for scientists, and editors/publishers for journalists which leads to a higher chance of being misled, as it is entirely up to the reader to assess the validity of said work, which people are often ill equipped to deal with, especially when it comes to scientific works.
This links to one of the problems of the medium. The study previously mentioned, “Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age” makes an interesting point that ““there is no face-to-face interaction and mostly not even a visual representation of the speaker. Therefore, the usual credibility cues (facial expressions, gestures, appearance) do not apply.” Which is salient in regard to articles, but there are platforms such as YouTube where you can see the speaker. However, these videos are filtered through being rehearsed filmed and edited. The article is arguing that as humans, we are evolved and raised to notice social cues to assess the trustworthiness and intentions of a speaker, which we are unable to do when reading an article or really do when watching a well planned and executed video. This leaves us vulnerable to being misinformed. It suggests to me that it may make it easier for us to project our subjective view of the information onto the speaker/writer.
The study also comments “valid cues for determining the credibility of a source of information (e.g., area of expertise, affiliation, education) might not be salient or even be hidden in the site notice”, which is definitely important, especially when it comes to deliberately misleading articles, and people promoting ideas that they are not well informed on, as it is easy to be duped into believing someone is an expert when they are lying. This makes it easier to counter the arguments of experts or undermine them. Prevalent commentators are often charismatic individuals who can seem credible on the surface, but often are found wanting when their sources or research is scrutinised.
I would also like to revisit the idea at the start regarding the importance of moral integrity when it comes to trust. The Internet makes it easier to distrust people, as we have access to a large number of statements and opinions of experts from old works or their private lives which can be used to paint them as hypocrites, or show them to be dishonest. It is a reflection of cancel culture in a way, wherein experts can have their history scanned for anything that makes them less credible to their audience. On the flip side, charismatic people can come across as more trustworthy and persuasive, even if they are ill informed.
Section 2 – Pundits and Politicians
I do not think this topic can be discussed without addressing the politicians and pundits who feed into this for their own gain. Trump ushered in the era of post truth, calling the media “Enemies of the People”, but he is not the only one who promotes animosity towards experts. I do not think everyone who does this is actively malicious in their intent, I am sure there are some that believe in what they say. Regardless they foster an environment of toxicity and harness it for their own gain.
Trump and his administration are major deniers of climate change, the President himself has disregarded it as a hoax. The head of his EPA has been quoted as saying “whenever you hear an environmental expert, think that he is an urban eco-imperialist”. They have skin in the game to create scepticism about climate change, leading to pipelines and expansions of oil production, which is controversial now, but by discrediting scientists they can gain support for their actions. The Koch brothers who own numerous fossil fuel companies, such as the Koch Pipeline which transports oil through the US has, according to Margaret Klein Salamon (a founder of Climate Mobilization), has “put billions of dollars into lying to the American public, even sending literature to science teachers in schools… They are so well organised and have managed to turn climate change into a controversial subject that gets shut down”. It seems evident that their methods are working. There is a political divide on topics on climate change, and given the divisive nature of politics at the moment its unsurprising that you will find more climate deniers on the right. A YouGov poll found 52% of Americans who self-defined as “very right-wing” believed global warming was a hoax; much higher that those with other political affiliations.
We have seen it here in the UK as well, with the aforementioned Gove comment that we “have had enough of experts”, which one cannot help but think is to distract from critiques of lies promoted by leave brexiteers.
Further evidence can be seen with Bolsonaro in Brasil. He has commented on his nations scientific institutions climate change concerns as “lies”, has shown himself going against social distancing advice during our current pandemic by going to shops without a mask or PPE and fired Luiz Mandetta, Brazil’s health minister, who supported social isolation and the closing of schools and businesses. Powerful politicians can garner support for their policies and world views by damaging the credibility of those who oppose them, and it comes across as a righteous act against the corrupt elites to those who support them.
Here is are two interesting and important quotes from a guardian article by William Davies:
“Trump voters are more than twice as likely to distrust the media as those who voted for Clinton in 2016, according to the annual Edelman Trust Barometer, which adds that the four countries currently suffering the most “extreme trust losses” are Italy, Brazil, South Africa and the US”.
“By lumping together journalists, judges, experts and politicians as a single homogeneous “liberal elite”, it is possible to treat them all as indulging in a babble of jargon, political correctness and, ultimately, lies. Their status as public servants is demolished once their claim to speak honestly is thrown into doubt. One way in which this is done is by bringing their private opinions and tastes before the public, something that social media and email render far easier.”
A lot of the power of politicians and pundits come from their use of emotional truths. To those who are worried, someone who says something that fits what they want to believe is more appealing than facts. One can comment on fears of immigration or fears of minorities, and if it feels right to the listener, they are more inclined to believe. This makes it necessary for their sources of information to discredit the fact checkers and experts who could prove these concerns misguided.
Proper fact checking from reputable sources will be critical in winning the war on disinformation. I will end this section on a quote from a study titled “The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue: Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy”.
“this gap between public compliance and private dissent creates an opening for a demagogue to claim she is conveying a deeper truth and is the authentic champion of those whose voices have been muzzled by the established leadership.”
Inaccessibility, Elitism and Language
An important part of distrust comes from the inaccessibility of a lot of experts, especially those in science communities. Those with insider knowledge often use hard to understand language and jargon. Dr Julia Shaws, a psychologist and senior lecturer on criminology at London South Bank University, provides an insight, saying ““From my own experience with experts, and being one myself, I think that one reason we seem so untrustworthy and self-centred is because of how we speak (Which can seem like) an elitist attempt to assert intellectual dominance”. They are seen this way because of how they communicate. When accustomed to talking with those with knowledge on a topic area it is easier to use complicated language that better portrays what you are trying to say. However, when the listener is a lay person it would be better to make things easier to understand. There is a time and place for jargon, and it is not the public sphere.
This makes it substantially harder for people to research things themselves. I know from personal experience the struggle of trying to understand an article or study filled with long words and acronyms. It’s easy to lose patience and interest when you are forced to constantly look for definitions or guess at meanings. It can seem like a different world, and this discourage us from understanding and trusting people who do not seem inclined to explain things to us. It is easier to disregard what is said, rather than either accept ignorance or invest time in learning a topic area, which may not even be relevant to our lives beyond the article we are reading. It encourages people to look for an easier option, and when there are critics undermining the expert this gives a get out of jail free card.
It’s not just the language barrier, but the knowledge barrier as well. An article from the Pew Research Center called “Trust and Mistrust in Americans’ Views of Scientific Experts” notes that those with less scientific knowledge are less inclined to believe scientist are actually working in the people’s best interest. Consider their finding that 66% of those who know a lot about the role of environmental scientists think they do a good job conducting research all or most of the time, compared with 27% of those who know nothing about environmental scientists. I saw this in action in our current pandemic when researching the WHO. It was demonised for failings it did not have the power to do anything about, such as failing to comment on Taiwan when the WHO, as a wing of the UN, doesn’t have the power to recognise it as a country (I’m not saying this isn’t wrong, it’s just not the right avenue for criticism, the critique should be aimed at the UN as a whole). We see it with anti-vaccers as well, who mistakenly believe that vaccines are dangerous due to them having mercury in them. This on the surface makes sense; we all know mercury is dangerous. In reality vaccines have a minute amount of a compound called Thimerosal which contains ethylmercury which can be safely broken down by the body. Misunderstanding is of course exacerbated by commentators who talk with confidence about issues they do not fully understand, often unaware of the harm they are causing.
Our perception of experts is intrinsically linked to our ability to understand them and their work. It’s a double-edged sword as those who do not trust them are less likely to look into their work and gain further understanding. Education is important to dispelling misinformation, and it is important for experts and scientists to work on bridging that gap.
Trust comes with an inherent vulnerability. Putting faith in someone, especially if they conflict with your world view is difficult on an emotional and intellectual level and is made harder when we can’t comprehend what they are saying.
Concluding Thoughts
The atmosphere of distrust which seems pervasive now is complicated. There are number of reasons why we might not believe experts and the question remains, what can we do about it? I think to start we need to encourage better communication from experts. We need them to reach out to us on a human level to explain the importance of their work and how they reach their conclusions as well as give us the facts. We need the internet, especially social media to take fact checking seriously to prevent disinformation and lies from those who take advantage of it. We also need to return to honest conversations about the world. We draw the battle lines based on our politics and experts and journalists end up in the crossfire, preventing us from talk about issues in a productive way. I encourage everyone, no matter where they lie on the political and social spectrum to seriously engage with their prejudices, especially when it makes you uncomfortable. The public discourse will never be perfect, but we need to work on it, and rebuilding public trust is key to that.
Sources
https://theconversation.com/distrust-of-experts-happens-when-we-forget-they-are-human-beings-76219
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608577/ Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI) Friederike Hendriks, Dorothe Kienhues, and Rainer Bromme
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963662519852038 What do we know about public attitudes towards experts? Reviewing survey data in the United Kingdom and European Union Katharine Dommett, Warren Pearce
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/27/americas/coronavirus-brazil-bolsonaro-timeline-intl/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/23/bolsonaro-trump-nationalists-ignoring-climate-disaster/
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/nov/29/why-we-stopped-trusting-elites-the-new-populism
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0003122417749632 - The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue: Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy, Oliver Hahl, Minjae Kim, Ezra W. Zuckerman Sivan
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-real-reason-that-we-don-t-trust-experts-a7126536.html
Comments