In recent years, political leaders and members of the public in many countries have increasingly expressed disdain for experts and expertise, often as part of broader anti-elitist sentiment. This trend is particularly notable in Europe and the US. In May, in Arab News, I wrote in defense of expertise. Just as we want a qualified teacher to teach our children, a practiced surgeon to perform surgery, and a competent engineer to construct a bridge, we should want experienced practitioners to inform our economic, public and foreign policies. There are many examples of the perils of ignoring expertise in favor of wishful thinking; the Brexit debacle is a perfect case study. At the same time, the growing disconnect between experts and the broader public in many places is partly due to a typical mistake that many experts make: Failing to understand how many people actually live and behave. Part of the problem is that many experts are part of society’s elite. They often are well educated and live and work in cities or on university campuses. Their income varies widely, and they are not always wealthy, but they are seldom poor. Women and racial, ethnic, and class minorities are frequently under represented. Naturally, experts often interact with other experts, which can encourage group think and limit the experiences and perspectives that shape their analysis and policy recommendations. A related factor is a disparity in perceptions between experts and other people. Experts try to base their perception of reality on statistics, economic data, and other forms of evidence. They tend to dismiss experiences that they see as emotional or lacking evidence-based data. However, reality to most people is based on their own personal experiences, emotions and identities, not facts and figures. Furthermore, experts tend to examine information in the aggregate, such as looking at the overall GDP growth of a country or at nationwide crime statistics. “Normal” people tend to base their opinions on their perceptions of their immediate environment, such as their neighborhood or city. For example, experts might see positive economic growth in a country while people in a particular small town might perceive growing economic challenges in their own community; both views can be correct and appear contradictory at the same time. The 2016 referendum vote in favor of Brexit went against extensive warnings from experts that Brexit would create massive problems. However, ignoring and even disdaining the experts, many Britons voted based on reasons that reflected their personal experiences. Kerry Boyd Anderson On top of these problems, experts are frequently not good at communicating their views to the wider public. Good experts are usually not ideological, are uninterested in providing “hot takes,” and understand that economics and politics are complex. Therefore, they are not likely to be popular on TV or other media forms that thrive on outrage and simplicity. There are many examples of situations in which experts’ difficulty in understanding the broader public’s experiences and how to communicate outside their field of expertise has created serious problems and undermined experts’ policy prescriptions. One example is the Washington Consensus — a set of principles for economic reforms that described the basis for many reform plans promoted by the IMF and other institutions. There are many debates regarding the Washington Consensus among economists, but one criticism is that, while the reforms might have improved a country’s overall economic performance, the middle and poorer classes often did not benefit. Indeed, in some cases, such as Egypt under President Hosni Mubarak, the reforms improved the overall economy but actually hurt many among the middle and lower classes. When populations turned against governments that had implemented reforms, economists sometimes saw their well-intentioned plans destroyed. The past two years have provided many examples of the disconnect between experts and publics. The 2016 referendum vote in favor of Brexit went against extensive warnings from experts that Brexit would create massive problems. However, ignoring and even disdaining the experts, many Britons voted based on reasons that reflected their personal experiences (such as concerns about the healthcare system), emotions (such as nostalgia), and group identity (expressed as opposition to urban elites or immigrants). Later in 2016, Hillary Clinton, a policy wonk with detailed policy proposals, lost the US presidential election to Donald Trump, a man who is skilled at tapping into emotions and group identity. More recently, the protests in France expressed anger toward President Emmanuel Macron, who the protesters see as elitist and out of touch with the concerns of French citizens beyond the cities. Macron had pursued the type of economic reforms that many experts believe are necessary to improve France’s economy and employment rate, but he failed to appeal to a large segment of French society. There is some awareness among experts of these problems. The development of behavioral economics, for example, stemmed from a recognition that economics should take into account the realities of human behavior. The IMF and other institutions have made important modifications to their earlier reform principles. A recent report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace highlighted the need to “make US foreign policy work better for America’s middle class.” There should be a two-way street between experts and the public. Experts should consider the actual effects of their policy proposals on a wide variety of people. Experts need to communicate to a non-expert audience more effectively. At the same time, political leaders, business leaders and the broader public should have the wisdom to acknowledge that they do not know everything and that expertise is essential to developing solutions that can effectively improve people’s lives. Kerry Boyd Anderson is a writer and political risk consultant with more than 14 years’ experience as a professional analyst of international security issues and Middle East political and business risk. Twitter: @KBAresearch Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view