Thread by @TomLevenson

Noah Smith blocked me, alas, (after a not very nasty–IMHO–twitter exchange) so I can't engage with him directly but that doesn't stop me from saying that this is an interesting and useful essay. 2 quick reactions:

The first concerns this quote, which I think is exactly right:

https://twitter.com/EpicureanDeal/status/1430621256047603719

2/ My only add to Smith's thought is that is exactly the position of elite DC media, exposed by their Afghanistan fail (and much else besides). They reject the criticism of outsiders (including really excellent journalists outside the DC nexus, and they have 1 great advantage...

3/ In that they buy ink by the barrel, enabling them to tell the world (&, importantly, each other) how immaculate is their work. But even so, there is, ISTM, a growing perception that "outsiders" are getting basic stories much more right than the nabobs of contemporary media...

3.5/ an aside...

I truly love the word, "nabob."

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

4/ The other thought Smith's essay provoked is that he accidentally (I think) tripped over one of the counterarguments to the value of outside scrutiny of expertise. Take a look at this passage:

5/ Tufecki is due the credit Smith gives her on her masking intervention.

In the next graf, Smith acknowledges that all domain-jumping is not created equal. Cranks do exist, and in the anti-vax realm and other COVID-adjacent fields they do real harm...

6/ This juxtaposition points to a structural problem in what might be thought of as the amateur ideal. The risk when someone has been right on stuff on which they're not in-group experts is a growing faith in the intrinsic value, even the rightness of outsider views...

7/Smith is clearly aware of this problem (consider how he dances around Nate Silver's record), but Tufecki is actually a better example. Her strong argument on masks has been followed by a bad take on the COVID origins question...

8/ Wh. is precisely the kind of problem for which highly detailed domain-specific expertise is essential. Here's where contrarian-tinged outsider stance is prone to fall to the classic ailments of motivated reasoning–in this case a desire to prove an expert consensus wrong. /fin