Credentials
An efficient and economical mechanism for us to benefit from the expertise of a specified class. We do not need to know how to fix a complex electrical issue in our home, nor do we need to know how to perform a heart transplant. We have electricians and doctors.
Fundamentally an attempt at controlling quality, but somewhere along the way became about dictating quality, both publicly and privately.
Someone with the appropriate credentials should be able to offer valuable insights within their respective realm that we would be incapable of discovering on our own, otherwise their credentials are largely superfluous. If someone with credentials makes claims but prefers to avoid justifying them to their audience, it is often because they cannot be bothered, they feel it is beyond our comprehension, or because they are full of shit.
This paradigm is favoured by EXPERTS and intellectuals, many of whom believe we should just take their word for it. This is a strange sort of self-referencing appeal to authority, because we are being invited to find the speaker appealing enough based on their credentials alone that we affirm their position. This is not an argument; it is a request to temporarily suspend our mental faculties so they can obtain unearned complicity and obedience. I am the expert; you should listen to me.
It could be that explanations are lengthy because the situation is complicated, and so shortcuts may be preferred, but if something is important and has serious or significant implications, then rushing through an assessment will not tend to generate high quality results.
Adults used to combine our perspectives in an attempt to reach a nuanced understanding of the complexity of human existence, then we would make our respective decisions based on the particulars of our own circumstances. Now, we are strongly encouraged to take a back seat to technocrats and experts who will establish correct and moral conduct on our behalf, and we are expected to universally implement their edicts irrespective of our unique set of factors and priorities. Apparently, credentials bestow individuals with a genius intellect, moral purity and wisdom, and a licence to govern free citizens that neither needed nor asked for their input.
While we need to decide for ourselves whether someone’s credentials are an adequate metric for determining the value of their opinion in any given situation, numerous industries have clearly caught on to the power of such accreditations. The system of credentials has been compromised - they have been gamed. They have credentials for everything now: markets and special interests have developed courses and programs specifically tailored to bolster the status of anyone with a wallet and a will to power. Create a course, charge a fee that is high enough to represent substantive value, ensure the course is long enough that it appears rigorous relative to the subject matter, and anyone can be a certified expert!
Credentials certainly have a place in modern society, and how we choose to value certain ones over others will largely depend on how well we understand the field. Additionally, if two people have earned the same credential, it certainly does not make them equal. Some people perform far beyond the expectations of what a course or program demands, yet they receive the same credentials as the rabble beneath them. The competitors that barely succeeded do not benefit from advertising their mediocrity to potential clients, and so this is withheld from us, if they know what is good for them. Fundamentally then, credentials represent a threshold of exposure to a particular set of facts or knowledge, but we remain conspicuously unaware of its details: is the bar set high, low, in the middle? There is such a great potential for variance that we ultimately need to look at the individual making the claims in order to determine if they are worthy of our time. Their credentials alone do not cut it.
Since we are taking a far more discerning approach, why concern ourselves with credentials at all? Is the quality of a claim or an argument determined in any way by someone’s credentials? Logically, of course not, but we generally expect that an expert will produce more reliable claims by default. This is an error. The power of a persuasive argument is informed by the amount and quality of evidence produced to support it; the mind or mouth that ASSERTS it is irrelevant.
Regardless of how we feel about credentials, there is one unequivocal and unavoidable pitfall present when we are examining the value and appropriateness of credentials: they are not a measure of moral character. What is the ethos behind the claim? Regulatory bodies are frequently mandated and funded by governments, and so they are beholden to the political ambitions of the reigning party. Because the motivations behind any claim remain consistently opaque, it is imperative to assess the legitimacy of claims on their own merits. Deferring to someone’s position, credentials, or education in lieu of examining the substance and evidence for an argument is incredibly dangerous for ordinary citizens. We are the ones who suffer the outcomes of this misplaced trust, those in power do not.
Beyond any specific regulatory concerns, what are the motivations of the individual? Who benefits from any downstream effects of a claim if it were to be implemented? In which ways do they benefit? These need to be known if we are to even pretend to serious about our role as democratic citizens. Do we exist to participate in governance? Or to receive edicts from experts and carry them out without question? One is certainly easier than the other, but laziness is not a virtue, neither are ignorance or obedience. Additionally, we should be suspicious of an expert who feels that the role of the citizenry is to blindly follow their instructions. What sort of person is this? They are comfortable with ordinary citizens occupying a diminished and dehumanized state of passivity, when they should be seeking to remind us of our maturity and responsibility. Such minds are unfit to heed, and we should actively seek their dismissal.
Credentials, or lack thereof, are often invoked even when no specialized or technical knowledge would be necessary to hold a position. This is done to disqualify and discredit valid arguments made by anyone who can read and formulate a reasonable claim, historically called adults.
All of the angels and demons in history have the same credentials, it is up to us to relentlessly assess all claims according to whichever ethos we have agreed should prevail.
Credentials may serve as an invitation to be heard, but they are merely a distraction when a claim is tabled.
Posted: 25 Jan 2023
