Podcast brief
Oliver Traldi on What Makes Someone a Political Expert
Oliver Traldi talks with Matt Teichman and Joseph Diller about what political expertise is and why it is so hard to identify.
A Stoa brief of an episode from Elucidations
Episode 156: Oliver Traldi discusses political expertise
Listen to the original episode
The episode belongs to its makers. This page summarizes its arguments in Stoa's words and points to the moments where they are made. Brief updated .
The brief
What does it mean to be a political expert, rather than merely someone who looks like one. Oliver Traldi argues that "expert" carries two different meanings that we tend to run together. In the epistemological sense, an expert is someone with true beliefs, a good track record, or real understanding of a domain. In the social sense, an expert is someone with credentials, a platform, or public status. The two usually travel together, but not always: a self-taught savant can know a field cold without a single credential, and a credentialed figure can hold a title without the knowledge to back it.
This distinction does most of the work in the conversation. Traldi proposes that a topic becomes political simply when it turns into a site of broad public controversy, which means almost any subject, from climate science to art history, can become politicized once people start fighting over it. That creates a problem, because political questions are usually questions about what we ought to do, and moral epistemology is itself unsettled terrain. Credentials in epidemiology or engineering do not automatically transfer to knowing the right policy, since the technical question and the moral question are not the same question.
The strongest worry raised is that novices cannot easily tell good experts from bad ones without becoming experts themselves. Track records, credentials, and recommendations from other trusted sources all help, but they push the problem back a level, since the institutions that grant credentials have their own blind spots. Traldi names this failure mode "expert shopping," picking whichever expert already agrees with you, and ties it to Jonathan Haidt's social intuitionism and the argumentative theory of reasoning, on which reasoning evolved to persuade rather than to find truth. He does offer one clear case where deference is rational: when experts agree on a question outside your competence, like the year of Rembrandt's birth, you have no way to generate competing evidence, so you should simply defer. When experts visibly disagree, the rational move is to suspend judgment rather than pick whichever answer you heard first.
The conversation closes on a modest, usable point. Political actors have incentives, self-promotion, office, brand, that shape what they say independent of truth. What is scarce, and worth prizing, is earnestness: the disposition of someone with nothing to gain from being wrong.
Strongest arguments
Two senses of expert: epistemic versus social
1:09Traldi distinguishes expertise in the epistemological sense, meaning true beliefs, a good track record, or real understanding of a domain, from expertise in the social sense, meaning credentials, platforms, or public status. The two frequently overlap but can diverge, as with an untrained savant who has real knowledge but no credentials, or a credentialed person who lacks it.
Political expertise depends on how one defines the political
12:38Traldi proposes that a topic counts as political when it involves broad public controversy, often emotionally charged. On this view, expertise can become political expertise simply because any domain, from climate science to geopolitics, can turn into a site of public disagreement.
Political questions carry a moral dimension that resists expertise
13:11Most concrete political questions are about what we ought to do, giving them a moral or practical dimension. Traldi argues this creates a distinct problem, since moral epistemology is itself difficult, and credentials in an unrelated technical field, like epidemiology or engineering, do not automatically confer the ability to answer questions of right and wrong.
Meta-experts and credentialing chains have their own blind spots
8:12Novices often rely on meta-experts, such as recommendation letters, rankings, prizes, or institutions, to decide whom to trust, but this pushes the problem back a level: what justifies trusting the original credentialing source. Traldi notes that such systems can have patterned blind spots, for instance always rewarding one type of work over another.
Expert shopping and post hoc rationalization in political reasoning
18:17Traldi describes expert shopping, a term he attributes to Gabriel Contessa, where people select whichever expert already agrees with their prior view rather than genuinely deferring to expertise. He connects this to Jonathan Haidt's social intuitionism and to Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber's argumentative theory of reasoning, on which reasoning evolved to persuade rather than to discover truth.
Rational deference varies with the presence of expert disagreement
23:04When experts agree on a question outside one's competence, such as the year of Rembrandt's birth, simply deferring is rational because a novice has no way to generate competing evidence. When experts visibly disagree, the rational response is to withhold judgment or weigh the disagreement rather than pick whichever answer one heard first.
Political actors' incentives undermine trust more than outright lying does
33:34Traldi argues that when the people treated as political experts are themselves political actors, their statements are shaped by motives like self-promotion, winning office, or building a public brand, independent of the truth. He contrasts this with the paleontologist model, someone motivated purely by love of the subject with nothing to gain from being wrong, and closes by naming earnestness as a scarce virtue in political life.
Questions this episode answers
-
What is the difference between being an expert and being seen as an expert?
1:09Traldi separates the epistemological sense of expert, meaning someone with real knowledge, true beliefs, or a good track record, from the social sense, meaning someone with credentials, platforms, or public status, noting the two can come apart.
-
What makes a topic or question political?
12:38Traldi argues a topic is political when there is broad public disagreement or controversy about it, often emotionally charged, so almost any subject can become political once controversy attaches to it.
-
Why is political expertise harder to establish than expertise in engineering or medicine?
11:37Political questions usually involve a moral or practical dimension about what we ought to do, which runs into the harder problem of moral epistemology, and society is too complex and non-repeatable for the kind of track record that engineering or manufacturing can build up.
-
What is expert shopping and why is it a problem?
18:17Expert shopping, a term Traldi attributes to Gabriel Contessa, is the practice of picking whichever expert already agrees with one's prior view rather than genuinely updating one's beliefs based on expert testimony, which turns deference into rationalization.
-
When is it rational to simply defer to an expert without question?
23:04Traldi holds that deference is rational when there is expert consensus on a matter outside one's own competence and no plausible way one's own reasoning could add evidence, such as historians agreeing on the year of Rembrandt's birth, but not when experts visibly disagree.
-
How does Jonathan Haidt's social intuitionism relate to political reasoning?
19:05Traldi describes Haidt's view that moral reasoning functions like a public relations firm or press secretary for prior intuitions rather than a means of discovering truth, connecting it to worries that political thinking is largely post hoc rationalization.