TheMarketForIdeas

On the concept of expert, as semantically opposed to the concept of the politician, I had spoken many times before, including, if I remember well, under this heading too. More exactly, in principle, the politician is an expert of purposes, while the expert is a politician of means. Beyond the paronomasia involved, I want to say that the politician should be required to establish the purposes by ignoring the necessary means for their achieving, while the expert should be required to establish the means (most) appropriate for a given purpose. One consequence of such a Manicheism is the following: it is recommended to avoid the appointment of a (genuine) expert as a minister, for example, and, symmetrically, to avoid the appointment of a politician as an expert. Of course, the social practice usually ignores such a “normative” conclusion. However, essentially, this time, I do not want to take over this important distinction, but I would talk about the army of experts (some of which being genuine and some impostors), generally giving consultations through the TV screen on any issue you could imagine. 

On a typology of fake experts 

From a psycho-sociological perspective, I think there are the following categories/classes of fake experts (I am convinced that many other such classes exist, even if we did not yet meet them): 

(a) the incompetent full of ifose

The incompetent with ifose is convinced of his competence (he is not an impostor). As a result, his attitude is one not only full of his own importance in the history of mankind but also of the fact that he lucks, by his own existence and intellectual value, all his contemporaries. He looks straight at the interlocutor, although his gaze seems to pass through him to views accessible only to himself, he listens patiently, giving the understanding that he tolerates the difficulty with which the reply is given to him (a peremptory sign of the difficulty with which his ideas, exceeding the usual, are understood – often, of course, wrongly or superficially, as suits ordinary people) and then, before answering, makes a long pause. The pause is not meant to collect his thoughts, they are clear and at hand at all times for him, but to find an expressive formula that can be understood by others. As a result, he speaks rarely, under pressure, targeting the interlocutor (or, as the case may be, the viewer stunned and reduced by the heights reached by this marvelous character). Of course, he doesn't say anything that ultimately turns into an idea, because the incompetent with ifose has no access to the Idea, he just mumbles platitudes - the platitudes are exactly required by the incomprehension of his listeners. Do not imagine that the incompetent with ifose writes books or scientific articles - no, God forbid, that way his entire intellectual wasteland would become too obvious - he only torments the television producers and the unlucky viewers who happen to be on that station and at that time. 

(b) the incompetent full of modesty

The modest incompetent plays the role of an introvert, a sincere agnostic, but a firm believer in the human being's ability to know the Universe – in this epic adventure, s/he considers him/herself and positions him/herself as a small and insignificant link, doing all that is human possible to move the progress of humanity one step forward. His/her physical posture follows the commands of this role, s/he sits on a corner of the chair, looks around with a well-acted fear, places and re-places various objects on the table – glasses, pen, sheets of paper – looks at the interlocutor or the filmmaker, as the case may be, with full understanding and even jovial, at certain moments, gives the impression that s/he feels awkward in the public light of the film set, s/he who is only familiar to the only solitude of deep and aseptic reflection. S/he answers the questions that are put to him/her, obviously, only through reflections without any consistency in the mirror, such as: it is difficult to say what will happen, it will not be easy to get out of this situation, I would not dare to say that, it is good to be cautious in our evaluations, and others of the same kind, all signifying, obviously, the huge modesty and scientific prudence which suits so well a scholar without the guise of a guru. 

(c) the incompetent full of worry

The concerned incompetent has the air of being in the middle of a truly historic moment, in which s/he has the privilege (but also the chance for the entire human race) to identify, describe and catalog catastrophic risks and vulnerabilities not seen since the extinction the dinosaurs. The concerned incompetent never smiles, and over the possible jokes or attempts at humor of the host or the interlocutors, s/he passes without any sign of sympathy, distantly and glacially, as befits someone who notices (the only one of his/her contemporaries) what danger we are facing or what lies ahead let's face it. S/he almost always forgets that, on previous shows, s/he drew attention to the same apocalyptic events (which, of course, have not happened at all in the meantime) and establishes, without blinking, what times and events are to occur, drawing attention that the rulers do not even realize the almost hopeless situation we are in. Contrary opinions (or those that try to mitigate the catastrophes that await us) are met with undisguised disdain, with a significant narrowing of the eyelids (which means ‘the great garden of God, Lord’) and with a silence that means that, in the face of this blindness, there is nothing to say, our fate is sealed. 

(d) the incompetent who does not say all

This kind of incompetent falls between the incompetent with ifose and the modest incompetent. As a result, s/he displays an impenetrable figure under which is guessed a whole world of turmoil, of deep thought processes, very few of which will – unfortunately for the outside world – find expressive form and, more than likely, even fewer will be understood in their essence (Nota bene: make no illusions, this type of incompetent is not a phenomenologist, access to eidos is completely forbidden to him/her). S/he answers any question based on the following discursive structure: first a barely sketched smile that wants to mean something like 'without realizing it, you touched on a crucial matter'. Immediately afterwards, his/her face darkens with the weight of what s/he is about to say. The third step is the very verbal expression s/he enunciates – this is deliberately ambiguous, having a certain intelligibility only on an expressive level, not at all on an ideational level. Specifically, the incompetent we're talking about here, simply doesn't finish his/her idea. The theatrical expression of this stage in the individual's performance can be described as follows: s/he suddenly stops speaking, turns his/her gaze full of meaning (something like: 'I hope you realize where we stand in this matter'), one by one, fixing every interlocutor present on the television studio and then, fixing his/her gaze on the producer of the show, says with dignity and immense responsibility: 'I would not like to say more about this'. After which, weighed down by the weight of what is known but which, for the general good, s/he decides to pass under silence, s/he sips with small sips, from the glass made available (within the protocol expenses) by the respective television station (Nota bene: s/he will repeat the scene, of course, on any other television channel to which s/he will be invited). Interesting, with this actor, is the physical and physiognomic posture taken during the time when the other interlocutors present their opinions: something between the concern for so little power of understanding on the part of his contemporaries and the burden that presses on his/her shoulders and on his/her conscience, which understands so deeply the things in question. 

On other species of incompetency, we shall hear within the next communication.