Two Plus Two Magazine, Vol. 11, No.9
With all the discussion going on these days about all sorts of different issues, how can we know who to trust; especially if we don't know much about it ourselves? When you're trying to decide who is more likely to be right when people are taking different positions, there are several factors you should try to take into account.
Who knows best?
That would be the person who has the most experience or perhaps the person who has studied the most about it. This, of course, is a criterion that almost everyone uses. However, they often neglect many of the following criteria.
Who's Smarter?
So I want to say who is better at critical thinking? Who understands deductive logic? Because if someone isn't good at logic, they're more likely to commit fallacies like "affirming the logical" or "denying the antecedent". Once they do this, they will usually come to an incorrect conclusion. This may be difficult for some people to admit, but there is little doubt that the person with less experience or detailed knowledge of the subject may still be more likely to be right simply because they are smarter. Poker players see this demonstrated every day when the college kids beat the gray-haired veterans.
Who is Biased?
Do any of the debaters gain personally if the position they are defending is generally accepted? If so, they are less likely to be correct than the one who disagrees, but has nothing to gain. (Assuming, of course, that all other factors are similar). Obviously, you'd be much more inclined to believe someone if the position they're defending results in something harmful to them if it's accepted. A common example would be when two surgeons disagree about whether you should have an operation. I would tend to bet on the one who says no.
How Right Are They?
If they are equally rich and equally inclined to bet, I would tend to believe the person who is in the mood to bet more. This can be true even if they're not so smart and a bit biased. When the number two soccer team is playing against the number five soccer team on a neutral field, the number five team is sometimes favored by the bookies, even if the experts rate them lower. When this happens, you can be sure that team number five is more likely to win. Exactly why this syndrome occurs is unclear. It probably involves the fact that the person who wants to bet the most knows something about this particular situation, even if they are more stupid or have less experience.
Do they mention the opposing arguments?
When defending their positions, many people just give the reasons why they are right. But if you are a person who is confident in your convictions, you don't mind specifically refuting your opponents' arguments point by point. If at least one of the two debaters is doing this, you should lean towards their side.
Is Being Right Important to Him?
Sometimes you meet someone who prides himself on not being wrong. Obviously, no one like that would tend to be both well-informed on the subject and have a high IQ. However, and even more importantly, this person won't weigh up an issue if they're not sure of their answer. (The exception, of course, would be if they're attributing probability to their opinion. (The exception, of course, would be if they're assigning probability to your opinion, as long as they can blame a zebra coming along when they turn out to be wrong). When you meet someone like this, you should almost always assume that they are the one who is right, even if you would think otherwise under normal conditions. It's like a poker player going all-in on the river when the only hand that can beat you is a back door flush. That's an unlikely event. But it's even more unlikely that he would make that bet without that flush.
Written by: David Sklansky
Translated and adapted from: Who Should You Believe?
English 
Português do Brasil 