At a very simply level, this uncritical acceptance is based on something one school of social psychology calls “balance theory.” (Brown, 1986). It seems that when we like someone and accept their views on one issue, then we are likely to accept what they say regarding another issue. We are keeping our social relationship with this other person in a state of “balance.” It is very uncomfortable for us to hold a mixed view of another person—especially someone we admire.
Another school of social psychology views this as an example of the strong motive to avoid Cognitive Dissonance. (Aronson, 2018) For this school, it is not just enough to keep an interpersonal relationship balanced, it is important that we keep everything in our life consonant. We don’t want any contradictions in our belief system. If we believe that this person is an expert on medical matters, then we also have to believe that they are an expert in other areas—otherwise their medical expertise might also be questioned. “If they don’t know what they are talking about with regard to X, Y or Z or if they are lying to us, then how do we believe anything they say!”
We see in this proclivity to sustain interpersonal balance and avoid dissonance another example of a dualistic perspective: either everything this person has to say is actuate and they are to be trusted or nothing they are saying can be believed or trusted. When this search for balance and consonance is brought into the public domain and when what is being said in this domain is saturated with anxiety, then this search becomes highly motivated. It also tends to lead to mis-directed decisions and inappropriate actions. This is when the world becomes quite dangerous.
To illustrate this more dangerous level of uncritical acceptance of expertise, we return to Steven Hatfill. As a reminder, Hatfill was a 67-year-old immunology professor at George Washington University (in Washington D.C.) who came out of the blue with no credentials or credibility to guide US policy under Trump regarding delays in COVID response. He ultimately transitioned out of his area of medical knowledge to be involved in the attempts to overturn the 2020 election and he became involved in false claims about the rigging of the US Presidential election in 2020.
As David Dunning has observed, it is a very complex and difficult task for anyone to assess their own competence. It is even harder when those around us (particularly sycophants), do not provide honest and critical feedback. It is a slippery slope for experts to consider themselves expert in other domains – and sometimes with dangerous outcomes. It is an even more slippery slope for those in society who are asked to accept this shifting expertise. They desperately want balance and consonance. It is essential for experts and leaders to build a team of knowledgeable collaborators and for critics to be present who provide honest feedback. Both the slippery expert and the sliding public need this assistance.
Download Article 1K Club
