Expertise and "rationality" vs. communication

Some time ago, I read a book called "The Death of Expertise": to simplify considerably, it was a book decrying the loss of trust in expertise.

We're paying for that now, quite obviously, with conspiracy fantasists attempting a coup in the USA and ludicrous fantasies about vaccines (they connect you to the Internet? Really?? FFS IPOCs!!!), but part of the problem is also the arrogance and small-mindedness of university graduates - which is partly shown in the flawed basis of the Engineer's Registration Act in my home state. 

I'd like to give an example of that arrogance, and how it has contributed to the loss of trust in expertise. 

In the 1980s a coastal town needed a wastewater (which is term that has been used in many places for sewage for about four decades now) collection and treatment system. We did the usual thing and provided a range of options - tertiary treatment (i.e., reduction of nutrients - which is far more advanced than used to be provided at the Eastern Treatment Plant, by the way - certainly far more than was done at that time [those who think "tertiary" means final treatment should be using "polishing" - or "disinfection"] ) so it could be discharged to the ocean, secondary treatment (reduce BOD5 from 300 mg/L to 20, but no extra nutrient reduction beyond what the microorganisms consumed for their growth) which allows reuse for irrigation. 

In those bad old days (and still in some areas), secondary treatment was also used for discharge to the ocean (actually, it was even worse quite often: sometimes there was only removal of settleable solids, or even no significant treatment). The idea was that the dilution was a solution . . . 

Yes, I know - it is incredible, and has always been - although some poorer areas of the world may not be able to afford anything else without international aid. (Also, as I have written elsewhere, we knew in Queensland in the 1980s that nutrient discharge off farms was a problem: the powerful farming lobby, however, insisted that towns reduce their few per cent of the overall problem first, and town clerks in local Councils said "no" because it wasn't a big part of the problem. Stubbornness and evasion on all sides.) 

This is also where the arrogance of engineers comes in to it, as many would say "well, the numbers we measure look good when we dilute it, so what's wrong with just diluting it?" 

Well, IPOCs, the problem is that the numbers used (then - we have more use of data looking at toxic and other impacts now) are limited and based on other contexts - public health and rivers, and don't go anywhere near to picking up all the effects. 

When engineers make comments outside their area of expertise as part of their official duties (they're allowed to shoot their mouths off outside of work - subject to same links as everyone else), they create an image of being out-of-touch elitists, and those affected by or using the engineers may start to lose trust in the credibility of the engineers. (Don't make the mistake of thinking the approval of others in your social bubble mean widespread approval or acceptability from society).

Engineers need to learn to say "That is outside my formal area of practice, and if I were to provide a comment it would be an inexpert opinion." Which, incidentally, is in the Engineers Australia  Code  of  Ethics . . .  

(And for those engineers I've argued with over the years who think the EA Code of Ethics doesn't apply because they're not members of Engineers Australia [a decision often made, in my experience, because they wrongly think EA should be a union], any court case is likely to consider the EA Code of Ethics an indicator of what is accepted [by an august professional body] as being a reasonable expectation of engineers work - and that has been so throughout my career, including when social and environmental obligations were introduced.)

Fortunately, we have an EPA, and they set a science-based limit on nitrogen and phosphorus for this application. 

Nitrogen is typically of more concern than phosphorus in salt water, whereas in fresh water, phosphorus is the nutrient of major concern. Nitrogen can be fairly easily reduced to very low levels, but at that time, techniques for reducing phosphorus were being developed and refined, and weren't as good as what we now have. 

The EPA decided phosphorus should reduced from 12 mg/L in raw wastewater to around 5 mg/L in the treated effluent; the local water Authority was keen to "do the right thing", and chose to adopt a phosphorus limit of 3 mg/L (so, better for the environment, but increases costs). After a public consultation process, the local community went a step further and - knowing it would cost more - adopted a phosphorus limit of 2 mg/L.

There were some problems with the consultation process (the permanent residents considered they were drowned out by those who were rich enough to have second homes in the town and were less affected by higher rates, so this was to some extent - no matter how good it was for the environment - a form of gentrification), but, in the context of this post, the point is: 

• appropriately experienced engineers (yes, including me, but I was fairly low in the food chain in those days) prepared the cost estimates and other key details for a range of options; 
• communications experts presented the information in a consultation process which, although flawed, was designed by people with appropriate experience and thus better than something designed by, say, engineers (some of whom I've known over the years have actually been brilliant on communication, but communication skills for public consultation are hit and miss in engineering because it is a not a key part of our training - as compared to, say, communications professionals, whose training did have communication as a key part of their training . . . ); 
• those with responsibility (i.e., the water Authority) went to the public meetings and were accountable (and there were strong emotions - often from those who faced a significant cost burden, as well as a few dinosaurs of the it-was-good-for-my-ancestors-since-time-immemorial-so-shgould-be-good-enough-for-us-no-matter-what-changes-have-occured variety);
• the community made the final INFORMED decision.
  

It is not for engineers to say what is a reasonable cost - that is not taught in our courses (although triple bottom line style approaches are getting better, but we need experts to advise us on social and possibly [depending on the complexity of the situation] environmental impacts), and it is hubris for us to think that a numbers-based course gives us insight into the daily struggles of people being affected by our decisions (few engineers have had contact with poorer people - some have, particularly engineering volunteers, but it is a profession that is plagued at higher by arrogant, self-satisfied, pompous right wingers [not so evident on the project I am writing about, fortunately] - or used to be: it is getting better as new managers rise up through the ranks). 

(Some of these comments apply to University lecturers.) 

It is for us to prepare the information on engineering options for decision makes (in this case the community, but all others need to remember that if they are making decisions it is on behalf of a community [even a business can be considered to be a small community] ), and then to shut up and let decision makers (stakeholders, as they're termed these days) do their decision making, and provide additional information as the decision makers consider that they require. 

Some of this also requires expertise with communication, which is something engineers in those days often lacked. (Incidentally, there is still a problem with engineers over rating their ability to do drafting [some efforts look like a three year old with crayons] / under-estimating the demands drafters face, but that is a topic for a another post, maybe.)

Here's another example of arrogance: out of touch IPOCs in the medical profession who think the victim-blaming term "adjustment disorder" is non-stigmatising. Are you insane???!!!! 

What's more likely is that the right wingers in the US medical profession have done a tavern test (that's the rich folks' version of a pub test) and decided that they consider depression a stigmatising term because they think it is taken on by people they think are slackers so they'll give the people they think are slackers another label to show they're - in the opinion of the right wing minority of the US medical profession - slackers and then - for a joke - claim it isn't stigmatising. 

FFS. 

My experience of the real world is that terms like depression are understood to be real problems deserving of sympathy, not victim blaming. 

That is also the view of experts in the area (e.g., here).

Fortunately, there are also decent people in the medical profession, just as there are also decent people in engineering. 

They just need to learn to communicate, and - not only the medical right wingers I've treated with disdain, but also other professionals - accept that they serve society, not the other way round. (Any engineers in Australia who doubt that should look at the Engineers Australia Code of Ethics. I've got a few more thoughts on this topic here.) 

Bit now we get to politics. 

On the left we have a lot of caring people who are often intelligent (I mean that - it is not a snarky reference) but may tend to make the mistake of assuming that everyone else finds intellectualism pleasant and a satisfying way to make decisions. 

Please allow the world (not me) to introduce you to emotions. 

On the right, the thinkers and decent people are being drowned out in recent years by the conspiracy fantasists and religious extremists, but before that, they were often too much like the engineers who get angry (i.e., emotional) about not being emotional. 

Please allow the world (not me) to introduce you to self awareness.

The right wingers - and I include Murdoch's media empire as a right winger - have communicated effectively;
time for the left wingers to do the same.

And time for all professionals to accept that they are informing decision makers who may well have a better grasp of "the big picture" (such as the impacts of life matters such as work demands on time and energy, or impact of costs on budgets), not giving imperial or royal orders which must be obeyed, just as it is time for people outside of a particular profession to remember that, although the professionals in a particular profession may be IPOCs outside of it, there is actually a good chance they know what they're doing in it. 

Here's a final thought: if I want a bridge like, say, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, designed, or a heart transplant performed, I don't want a University Graduate: I want someone with real world experience in the use of their training. Even staying up-to-date is of less importance than experience, and it is the cumulative body of experience that matters - not idiotic and arbitrary restrictions such as only what has happened in the last five years. Expertise is, above all else, experience - as I often tell graduates, their hard work is admirable but their degree is a licence to start learning.

OK, time for a cuppa - and I think I'll use the "tavern test" term again . . .

PS - poorly explained decisions like the recommendation not to give a vaccine to the elderly don't help: that, despite the normal first reaction to the way that decision was reported, is not because of risks to the elderly, but just lack of evidence that it works - and the article here was very badly written: it's not meant to be an exercise from a drama class where you build up tension, you get the information out as quickly and clearly as possible. How many people did you lose before you got to the point, scientist and journalist behind the article?