That likely means we both find ourselves deferring to the opinion of others, of experts who know more about complex matters — like health or nuclear safety or vaccinations or climate change — than we do.
But heck, even scientists have to rely on the expertise of others (unless they’re some sort of super scientist with infinite knowledge of all things. Ahem, Neil deGrasse Tyson).
But for the rest of us intellectual Joes, we rely heavily on what we think the experts think. As it happens, figuring out what the experts think isn’t so easy, not even in those instances where the majority of experts agree on a subject.
Take for example, the issue of climate change, which is just what cognitive scientist Derek J. Koehler had in mind when he launched a recent pair of experiments designed to investigate what factors might contribute to our collective failure to grasp expert consensus.
The Problem of False Balance
“There’s
this
well-documented
gap
between
public
perceptions
on
[climate
change]
and
expert
perceptions,”
Koehler,
professor
of
psychology
at
the
University
of
Waterloo,
told
DeSmog
Canada.
“I
became
interested
in
this
as
an
observer
of
the
news
and
I
guess
it
was
probably
climate
change
more
than
anything
else
that
was
a
motivating
example
for
me.”
Koehler,
a
professor
at
the
University
of
Waterloo,
said
when
it
comes
to
climate
change
there
has
been
a
lot
of
discussion
by
media
critics
on
the
possible
role
that
false
balance
in
news
coverage
may
play
in
confusing
the
public
about
where
actual
expert
consensus
lies.
“Even
though
I
had
climate
change
in
mind
when
I
started
this
work,
the
actual
studies
I
ended
up
running
were
about
economic
issues
on
the
one
hand
and
movies
on
the
other
which
involved
looking
at
the
perception
of
consensus
among
film
critics.”
Koehler’s
research,
published
in
a
recent
online
article
in
the
Journal
of
Experimental
Psychology:
Applied
(print
version
forthcoming),
suggests
the
practice
of
giving
voice
to
experts
on
both
sides
of
an
issue
may
distort
public
perception
about
the
level
of
agreement
among
experts.
Koehler
entered
into
the
study
with
a
simple
question
in
mind:
what
factors
influence
our
ability
to
comprehend
where
expert
opinion
lies?
As
Koehler
found,
even
when
individuals
are
told
exactly
what
experts
think
(even
shown
what
they
think
using
graphs),
it
was
difficult
for
those
people
to
digest
and
then
rearticulate
that information.
Deciphering Expert Opinion: The Experiments
In
Koehler’s
experiment
a
group
of
participants
were
given
a
numerical
summary
of
where
the
opinion
of
experts
(convened
by
the
University
of
Chicago)
fell
on
a
selection
of
economic
issues.
For
example,
on
the
issue
of
whether
a
carbon
tax
would
be
effective
in
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
there
was
a
very
high
level
of
agreement;
93
experts
agreed,
five
indicated
they
were
uncertain
and
two
disagreed.
But
on
the
issue
of
whether
raising
minimum
wage
would
affect
the
ability
of
low-skill
workers
to
find
employment,
there
was
widespread
disagreement:
38
experts
agreed,
27
were
uncertain
and
36
disagreed
Koehler
presented
these
opinions
to
the
group
and
asked
them
to
rank
the
level
of
agreement
among
the
experts.
Koehler
also
asked
a
subset
of
the
group
to
read
comments
from
experts
on
either
side
of
the
issue.
What
Koehler
found
was
participants
exposed
to
commentary
from
the
two
experts
who
disagreed
were
less
able
to
decipher
where
expert
consensus
actually
resided.
So
hearing
the
argument
of
the
experts,
rather
than
just
seeing
their
position
displayed
on
a
chart,
made
it
more
difficult
for
those
individuals
to
distinguish
high
consensus
issues
(like
the
carbon
tax)
from
low
consensus
ones
(minimum
wage).
“Two
different
people
can
look
at
apparently
the
same
body
of
evidence
and
draw
very
different
conclusions
from
it,”
Koehler
said.
“We
know
from
past
psychological
research
that
that
can
and
does
happen.”
But
Koehler
became
more
interested
in
what
general
factors
might
lead
people
to
“systematically
misperceive
where
the
expert
consensus
lies
across
these
different
domains.”
In
these
experiments,
Koehler
explained,
the
participants’
“task
is
not
to
tell
us
what
they
personally
think
about
the
issue
but
where
the
experts’
opinions
fall
on
the
topic.”
Individuals
tend
to
hold
strong
opinions
on
economic
issues
like
minimum
wage
or
carbon
tax
so
Koehler
performed
additional
experiments
with
more
neutral
topics
like
the
ranking
of
films
—
left
unnamed
—
among
top
critics.
“So
for
instance,
with
the
movie
studies
participants
were
making
judgments
about
movies
that
were
not
identified,
so
deciphering
the
percentage
of
critics
who
thought
it
was
good
versus
bad
and
reading
a
couple
of
comments
about
the
movie
from
two
disagreeing
experts,”
he
said.
Koehler
said
keeping
the
movies
unidentified
“was
a
deliberate
attempt
to
make
it
impossible
for
people
to
draw
on
their
pre-existing
opinions
and
beliefs
in
making
these
kinds
of
judgments.”
“In
these
studies
I
deliberately
tried
to
develop
a
task
where
there
would
be
less
room
for
people’s
preexisting
opinions
to
play
a
role,”
Koehler
said,
adding,
“part
of
that
was
emphasizing
the
task
was
one
of
simply
reporting
or
rating
their
perceptions
of
what
experts
think
as
opposed
to
what
they
personally
thought
about
these
issues.”
Koehler
said
the
ability
of
participants
to
decipher
how
film
critics
ranked
movies
was
influenced
by
whether
or
not
they
heard
from
experts
on
both
sides.
Koehler’s
experiment
shows
that
even
before
you
add
in
“additional
complicating
factors”
like
strong
beliefs
or
preferences
surrounding
issues
like
a
carbon
tax
or
minimum
wage,
“the
presentation
of
conflict
between
specific
experts
can
distort
people’s
perceptions
and
lead
them
to
think
there’s
more
disagreement
among
a
population
of
experts
than
there
really is.”
Reporting Weight of Evidence
The
problem
of
false
balance
has
long
been
a
stumbling
block
for
communicators
of
climate
science.
Mainstream
media
outlets
have
for
years
given
equal
airtime
to
legitimate
climate
scientists
and
climate
deniers
who
often
have
no
scientific
background
or
have
direct
ties
to
the
fossil
fuel
industry.
Giving
equal
play
to
the
opinion
of
climate
scientists
and
deniers
has
had
significant
impact
on
the
public’s
perception
of
climate
science.
One
study
found
the
public’s
lack
of
certainty
around
climate
science
translated
directly
into
a
lack
of
support
for
smart
climate
policy.
One
remedy
that’s
been
popularly
advanced
as
a
solution
is
‘weight
of
evidence’
reporting.
Koehler
said
weight
of
evidence
information
would
require
a
reporter
to
indicate
that
the
opinion
of
one
expert
is
shared,
for
example,
by
97
per
cent
of
experts
while
the
opinion
of
the
other
is
only
shared
by
three
per
cent.
Yet
Koehler’s
research
indicates
weight
of
evidence
reporting
isn’t
enough
to
combat
misperception
of
expert
consensus
or
the
distorting
influence
of
false
balance.
“Even
when
that
weight
of
evidence
information
is
given,
people
in
their
perception
of
expert
consensus
discriminate
or
distinguish
less
sharply
between
high
and
low
consensus
issues
when
weight
of
evidence
information
is
accompanied
by
conflicting
comments
from
specific
experts,”
he
said.
“So
even
if
you
know
80
per
cent
of
the
experts
are
on
one
side
and
20
per
cent
are
on
the
other,
when
you
choose
one
specific
concrete
member
of
each
of
those
disagreeing
groups
of
experts
and
provide
a
comment
from
each
there
is
something
in
the
psychology
of
doing
so
that
crystallizing
the
view
from
either
side
in
the
form
of
a
single
person.”
“That
leads
people
to
see
more
disagreement
than
there
really
is
in
cases
of
high
consensus,”
he
said.
Koehler
added
that
in
his
studies,
information
was
stripped
down
to
its
bare
form:
“Basically
a
table
with
some
numbers
representing
expert
opinion.”
But
in
the
real
world
information
is
rarely
ever
presented
in
such
a
schematic
fashion
and
as
individuals
we’re
often
left
to
rely
on
our
memory
when
it
comes
to
recalling
what
we
think
the
experts
think,
he
said.
“I
think
it’s
easier
to
identify
a
problem
like
this
than
it
is
to
suggest
a
remedy,”
Koehler
said.
But
he
added,
“I
would
say
probably
a
general
piece
of
advice
for
everyone
is
to
try
to
look
beyond,
to
seek
out
those
sources
of
information
that
represent
the
thinking
of
a
population
of
experts
so
you’re
not
forced
to
rely
on
a
single
perspective
or
opinion.”
Although
it’s
unclear
exactly
why
the
presentation
of
dissenting
comments
skews
our
perception
of
consensus
(maybe
the
expert
had
a
convincing
argument
or
our
knowledge
of
disagreement
leads
to
a
sense
of
uncertainty),
Koehler
says
we
need
to
get
better
at
understanding
experts.
The
distorting
influence
of
false
balance
triggers
a
pretty
significant
“cognitive
glitch,”
Koehler
recently
wrote
in
the
opinion
pages
of
the
New
York
Times.
“Whatever
the
cause,
the
implications
are
worrisome,”
Koehler
wrote.
“Government
action
is
guided
in
part
by
public
opinion.
Public
opinion
is
guided
in
part
by
perceptions
of
what
experts
think.
But
public
opinion
may
—
and
often
does
—
deviate
from
expert
opinion,
not
simply,
it
seems,
because
the
public
refuses
to
acknowledge
the
legitimacy
of
experts,
but
also
because
the
public
may
not
be
able
to
tell
where
the
majority
of
expert
opinion
lies.”
By Carol Linnitt • Monday, April 25, 2016 Image: PopTech