http://larison.org/2007/08/08/getting-specific/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Wed, 23 May 2012 11:53:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 http://larison.org/2007/08/08/getting-specific/#comment-7478 Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:50:53 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/08/08/getting-specific/#comment-7478 This post reminds me of the book I'm currently reading: Philip Tetlock's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/dp/0691128715/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2414323-5202528?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186669663&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">Expert Political Judgment</a>. It presents the findings of some very interesting experiments regarding what type of thinking improves political judgment. Excessive specialization - and total faith in this specialized knowledge - ends up having an inverse relationship with good political judgment. It certainly doesn't suggest that politicians are better than academics in this regard, and I agree that an "ideological mode" of thinking is probably the biggest enemy to good political judgment. But Ignatieff has a point, even if he didn't make it explicitly. The specialists are often just as likely to don an air of infallibility as are the political ideologues. That the specialists ended up being right in this case does not mean that their specialization is the reason why (think of how many specialists were wrong about the Soviet Union in the 80s). This post reminds me of the book I’m currently reading: Philip Tetlock’s Expert Political Judgment. It presents the findings of some very interesting experiments regarding what type of thinking improves political judgment. Excessive specialization - and total faith in this specialized knowledge - ends up having an inverse relationship with good political judgment. It certainly doesn’t suggest that politicians are better than academics in this regard, and I agree that an “ideological mode” of thinking is probably the biggest enemy to good political judgment. But Ignatieff has a point, even if he didn’t make it explicitly. The specialists are often just as likely to don an air of infallibility as are the political ideologues. That the specialists ended up being right in this case does not mean that their specialization is the reason why (think of how many specialists were wrong about the Soviet Union in the 80s).

]]>