,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
It's interesting to contrast 3 types of job or role. Some of us have jobs where we expect most expert input to be neutral, so if we are out of line with the consensus we're either making a big call or we should be worried we're wrong.
Others have jobs where their role is to offer some plausible challenge to conventional wisdom, so they are trying to be against the consensus, to be contrarian or innovative.
In a third type of role we do not expect most expert opinion to be neutral. We expect it to be slanted, and we expect it to be hostile to us. So being attacked by most expert opinion is neither a surprise nor, except in a routine sense, a threat.
I suspect that many of us in the third category are frequently mis-characterised as if we were in the 2nd, whilst many in the 2nd attempt to present themselves as if they were the 3rd.
In case it helps, an easy example of the 3rd category. Suppose you were the expert advisor to a regulator seeking to introduce a measure affecting 50 large firms that those firms didn't want. Those firms will hire every expert around to tell everyone why you're wrong.
Those of us that have jobs like that aren't especially bothered or phased when almost all other experts publicly disagree with us. Being right when everyone else respectable is wrong is our daily job.
