While I agree with the underlying wisdom in this perspective, I feel like the discrediting of expertise has given rise to just insane things being considered truth/facts/reality by inward focused communities - both in-person and especially online.
And of course so-called experts have long abused their influence.
Maybe I'm not reading close enough, but I think there's got to be a balance between wisdom of the group and guidance by those with training and experience.
You're absolutely right! Expertise definitely still matters! However, in most cases, outcomes depend heavily on what kinds of problems we're trying to solve (technical vs. adaptive) and who gets to decide who the expert is in the first place (who holds power).
I don't mean to argue against expertise. I see emergent approaches as inclusive of expertise; an essential part, but not the whole. Perhaps, I might be arguing against the monopoly of expertise. Emergence simply recognizes that there are many kinds of wisdom and knowing that can help us see more fully.
I think the fact that leaders/experts can be so out of touch with reality and facts is actually a symptom of leader-dependency. When communities become insular and depend on an empowered leader to be the thinking brain, it leads to more distortions and exclusion of information. An echo chamber is a space where only the leader's voice echoes. Emergence requires genuinely diverse voices, outside perspectives, and yes, people with training and expertise to speak into the conversation.
When formal training meets diverse lived experience, we have more information to work with. So, your suggestion of a need for balance is spot on. Because we've over-relied on leaders so much for the past few hundred years, I feel like a "shift" toward emergence is necessary. But that doesn't mean abandoning expertise entirely! It just means widening the circle to include the many, not just the few.
While I agree with the underlying wisdom in this perspective, I feel like the discrediting of expertise has given rise to just insane things being considered truth/facts/reality by inward focused communities - both in-person and especially online.
And of course so-called experts have long abused their influence.
Maybe I'm not reading close enough, but I think there's got to be a balance between wisdom of the group and guidance by those with training and experience.
You're absolutely right! Expertise definitely still matters! However, in most cases, outcomes depend heavily on what kinds of problems we're trying to solve (technical vs. adaptive) and who gets to decide who the expert is in the first place (who holds power).
I don't mean to argue against expertise. I see emergent approaches as inclusive of expertise; an essential part, but not the whole. Perhaps, I might be arguing against the monopoly of expertise. Emergence simply recognizes that there are many kinds of wisdom and knowing that can help us see more fully.
I think the fact that leaders/experts can be so out of touch with reality and facts is actually a symptom of leader-dependency. When communities become insular and depend on an empowered leader to be the thinking brain, it leads to more distortions and exclusion of information. An echo chamber is a space where only the leader's voice echoes. Emergence requires genuinely diverse voices, outside perspectives, and yes, people with training and expertise to speak into the conversation.
When formal training meets diverse lived experience, we have more information to work with. So, your suggestion of a need for balance is spot on. Because we've over-relied on leaders so much for the past few hundred years, I feel like a "shift" toward emergence is necessary. But that doesn't mean abandoning expertise entirely! It just means widening the circle to include the many, not just the few.
Yep - all of this.