People who spend their time, earn their living, studying a particular topic produce poorer predictions than dart-throwing monkeys who would have distributed their choices evenly over the options. Even in the region they knew best, experts were not significantly better than non-specialists.Those who know more forecast very slightly better than those who know less. But those with the most knowledge are often less reliable. The reason is that the person who acquires more knowledge develops an enhanced illusion of her skill and becomes unrealistically overconfident. “We reach the point of diminishing marginal predictive returns for knowledge disconcertingly quick,” Tetlock writes. (Philip E. Tetlock, University of Pennsylvania in 2005 book Expert Political Judgment: How Good is It? How Can We Know?—Prudent Investor) “In this age of academic hyperspecialization, there is no reason for supposing that contributors to top journals—distinguished political scientists, area study specialists, economists, and so on—are better than journalists or attentive readers of the The New York Times in ‘reading’ emerging situations”. The more famous of the forecaster, Tetlock discovered, the more flamboyant the forecasts. “Experts in demand,” he writes, “were more confident than their colleagues who eked out existences far from the limelight.”
For many, thus, expertise signify more as social signaling (posturing or seeking social acceptance) and or “telling people what they want to hear” but predicated on certain technically based paradigms which produces an aura of supposed superiority rather than representative of the true domain knowledge.