> That said, spotting an expert outside of one’s field is a task one can become better at. And that’s important, given just how much information, good and bad, is not available to people. For example, is the expert associated with a university (a good sign) or some 'think tank' (a bad sign)?" Again, though, this takes experience and expertise. Groups like think tanks try to give themselves the trappings of expertise in a move specifically designed to fool us into trusting their statements.
This bothered me. I recall someone's response to a politician's rhetorical question as to why there were conservative think tanks but no liberal ones: "You already have them. They're called universities!"
The heuristic that tells you statements from someone affiliated to a university are more credible, and statements from someone affiliated to a think tank are less credible, will inevitably inform you that the US left is correct and the US right is wrong. It seems too crude to be useful in any area where think tanks operate.
This bothered me. I recall someone's response to a politician's rhetorical question as to why there were conservative think tanks but no liberal ones: "You already have them. They're called universities!"
The heuristic that tells you statements from someone affiliated to a university are more credible, and statements from someone affiliated to a think tank are less credible, will inevitably inform you that the US left is correct and the US right is wrong. It seems too crude to be useful in any area where think tanks operate.