Creeping Credentialism

An Internet friend recently voiced his dislike of a comment (or tweet, or post - I don't recall) wherein the commenter began "As a veteran..."

The objection, and it's a good one, is that the commenter sought to "credentialize" his opinion by adding the fact of his military service.

Or, more accurately, by leveraging public good-will toward those who've served to imply that his view matters more.

In the world of orderly argument and debate, this borders on the categories of "argument from authority/appeal to expertise" and "genetic fallacy." One's pedigree or personal history does nothing, from a logical standpoint, to add validity to a statement. That's not to say that one cannot convey what was learned from that history in asserting the point, and that's not to say that an expert's opinion, in-subject, is no better than a layman's, but if you want to convince, present the facts, not the "trust me..." angle.

However, most such "As a..." assertions we encounter aren't even factual or conclusion-assertions. They are simply personal viewpoints (in no way affirmations of the views of the group as a whole), and the subtext of the "As a..." is merely about adding heft to those opinions. It's a way of saying "since I belong to a favored group, my opinions should carry more sway than those of some rando."

In modern society, it's also a way of sneaking in identity membership, which comes with a tacit "you're not allowed to disagree with me" message for all those of subordinate identities.

Yes, subordinate identities. There is a hierarchy, as I've blogged about repeatedly. The emergence of this hierarchy, itself a product of the social justice/"woke" movement, became inevitable the moment that movement declared that equality was no longer the goal, that justice required unequal treatment based on skin color and other demographic sortings.

When inequality is normalized, human nature guarantees that people will compete for ascendance, in crab-antic and zero-sum style.

Thus, anything that can give someone an edge in ranking will be incentivized.

Thus, a "creeping credentialism," wherein someone will use whatever markers, expertise, experience, degrees, awards, or even personal hardship/tragedy to elevate an opinion, rather than relying on the strength of that opinion alone.

As well, people will use others' identities to force them down in the rankings, no matter the strength of their opinions.

Wall Street Journal editor and erstwhile columnist James Taranto would often cite humorous examples of people saying silly things under the caption "What Would We Do Without Experts?" The mission of that effort - to skewer the "appeal to expertise" that supplants putting in actual effort - didn't work, sad to say. We are inundated not only by experts in everything, but by people who point at them and say "shut up, the expert has spoken."

Then there's the related matter of diluted scholarship. Much of what is published fails the reproducibility test. In the hard sciences, more than half fail. In the soft sciences, that failure rate may be as high as 90%. Yet, we hear time and again, and even from people who should know better, "I read a study that says..." as if it's gospel. You'll probably find that most such cites are affirmations of the utterer's biases, rather than rebuttals.

Thing is, we need experts. Specialization and division of labor are fundamental to productive societies (Leonard Read's I, Pencil should be required reading for every school kid), and we each rely daily on the knowledge and work of countless experts. But, there is the proper use of and appeal to expertise, and there's the rhetorical gambit intended to quash disagreement.

Moreover, when experts disagree, what do too many people do? They find the ones that align with their preferred answer, and quote them as if the disagreeing ones don't even exist.

It takes a lot of work to be intellectually honest. Yet, it is vital, if we are to actually progress as a society, that such honesty be elevated above confirmation-bias and the desire to "win" arguments by playing credentialism games. Unfortunately, there are powerful forces, inside each of us, in academia, and in present-day society, that motivate "win the fight" over "get it right."