Peer Assessment Bias
&gt; Becoming an expert takes time, and many of the strong ideas that experts share are ideated during the time when they were an unheard of “peer.”<p>I agree with this author’s sentiment that peers should not be dismissed in favor of experts. This is especially true when considering early stage speculation or anecdotes, which can be the seed of an eventual change in expert opinion. Expert communities can also develop their own subcultures and associated biases. We have seen this in academia in the US (strong leftward ideological bias) but it also applies to academic journals, which have traditionally been viewed as a record of expert knowledge. A recent example: the authors of the largest mask study have had trouble getting journals to publish it (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theblaze.com&#x2F;op-ed&#x2F;horowitz-danish-newspaper-reveals-largest-study-masks-rejected" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theblaze.com&#x2F;op-ed&#x2F;horowitz-danish-newspaper-rev...</a>). A former NYT reporter recently shared that the study’s author feels it’ll be published only as soon as a journal is “brave enough” to do so: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mobile.twitter.com&#x2F;AlexBerenson&#x2F;status&#x2F;1317875526997102594" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mobile.twitter.com&#x2F;AlexBerenson&#x2F;status&#x2F;1317875526997...</a><p>Blind faith and blind dismissal are both obstacles to seeking the truth. Unfortunately the side effect of the heavy politicization of everything is that every situation, even peer review or the publishing of scientific information, is a power struggle between ideologies, rather than a civil exchange of ideas and joint mission to ascertain the truth. Correcting this requires general awareness of our peer and expert biases.<p>Also see related past discussion about peer reviews as the gold standard:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20607259" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20607259</a>