Cult of experts

This is an odd review of the book The Psychopath Test, which apparently has less to do with psychopathy than you might think by the title and more to do with the mystic nature of psychological diagnoses. The reviewer seems convinced in part of the book's main thesis, but comes to an odd conclusion that since diagnoses are so unreliably vague, we should really leave them up to the professionals:

In the end there is little black and white beyond the ink and pages themselves, but this is not Ronson’s fault. Diagnosis, whether of childhood bi-polar, psychopathy or the myriad conditions between, is a work-in-progress, an imperfect science in the hands of educated intellectuals. This is an important consideration for readers of The Psychopath Test who might be tempted, as Ronson was, to self-diagnose (he did so quite poorly; expect the same of yourself). The madness industry deserves to be approached with skepticism and a critical eye. But Ronson knows first-hand the perils of a layman playing doctor; diagnosis isn’t an exact science, but it is a complex one. Knowledge is power, but in this case it may be a loaded gun aimed directly at your foot. So for God’s sake, leave the labels to the professionals.

I have nothing against the cult of experts that exists in our society because I am largely a beneficiary of it. I get my hair cut by an expert, I get my sushi selected by an expert, I have my surgical procedures performed by an expert. I myself belong to a profession in which I am considered an expert and it is hilarious to hear other uninitiated people try to use the jargon, but I realize that at its core, the jargon is just that -- a lexicon that we made up to exclude outsiders. I realize that there is nothing inherently complicated or specialized about my body of professional knowledge that would keep any layperson from picking it up on their own, in fact it happens all the time. So what is the big deal about experts? To quote from that ever wise Wikipedia from a slightly different context:

[F]ortunes are nowadays earnt from insights by "experts" into the relationship between "knowns" and "unknowns", and in which all kinds of primitive fears, anxieties and superstitions about what "might happen" are manipulated and capitalized on - not infrequently in a fraudulent way. The authoritativeness of these experts, it is argued, often begins to rely on a quasi-religious belief by people in the experts' powers of analysis and forecasting, and in the power of their knowledge, something which is sustained with sophisticated techniques for persuading and seducing the public. The valuation of knowledge gets a somewhat "mystical aura".

If psychological diagnoses are by their nature moving targets, that doesn't mean we should necessarily trust the experts even more. If the more uncertain the subject matter, the more we trusted experts, we would be putting our full faith into psychics, diviners, and preachers. Some of us may choose to do so, but others legitimately choose to not.