This phenomenon has been researched. Dunning-Kruger effect. There is actually more to it than it appears
I would think Google has severely changed the very basics of that effect. Less emphasis on remembering knowledge today, and more on using knowledge.
There is some good news coming through e.g.
In general, almost no virus has ever been affected by a “drug”. If they can attack this one, it will be a rare thing.
LeSving wrote:
I would think Google has severely changed the very basics of that effect. Less emphasis on remembering knowledge today, and more on using knowledge.
It is all part of the same thing, I believe. You may not know, but you know how to find out – it was always thus. Just that these days, finding out it easier but also brings challenges in that you need to have a good feel for what sources you can trust.
Most of what has been said about pharma reps is true (this is my industry, not sales but clinical research) but one important point missing is that drug development has plateaued somewhat. Back in the good old days there were lots of new innovative drugs which made a real difference, and thus the reps really did have an important role sharing data with doctors. These days most new drugs are slight improvements of what went before, so doctors are rightly skeptical of the ‘carefully presented’ data that is given to them by reps. It is also true that the average GP knows very little about drugs beyond the core few that they prescribe every day.
Of course there is a commercial angle, but it is a business so why wouldn’t there be? Without the business there is almost no new development – it takes approximately 10-15 years and $200m-$400m to bring the average new drug to market. That money and development effort does not come from universities or medical research charities, it comes from global behemoths like Pfizer, GSK and Novartis.
Right now I am finalising a bid for a medium-sized pharma company to run a phase II trial with a new drug in fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva which is one of the rarest and most unpleasant conditions known to man, and at present there is no effective treatment. This trial will involve about 70 patients worldwide and will cost the developing company (the ‘sponsor’ in industry parlance) about $25-30m to conduct. Even if this trial shows good results (in early 2025 when it ends) they will still be more trials, more money to be spent and more data to be collected before they are anywhere near being granted a licence to sell the product. All the while their patent (25 years, and filed when they first identified the compound) is ticking – if they are very lucky they might get it approved to sell with 10 years still to run on the patent, more common would be 5-8 years. All that assumes the data is good enough to get that far: on a purely statistical basis the chances of this drug ever getting to market (given it has got this far) is probably about 10-20%. You don’t get your money back when it fails at the final hurdle!
Thus when the media complains about drug pricing it generally fails to appreciate (a) what development actually costs, and (b) that every drug that gets sold has to cover not only its own costs but also the vast amounts that were spent on the far more numerous drugs that never made it!
LeSving wrote:
I would think Google has severely changed the very basics of that effect
Yes internet done a lot on that but it also make it easier to overestimate own knowledge access to reasoning abilities: I did read few pages online on Bitcoin, so now I can claim a PhD in cryptography (but I still can’t break Enigma codes using my laptop 
)
Generally, and assuming you have the brains to start with, it takes a year or two (i.e. much less than most would believe) of keen interest to become “expert-level” on a narrow subject.
And, no, you can’t break enigma messages with a laptop Well, some you can…
Peter wrote:
Generally, and assuming you have the brains to start with, it takes a year or two (i.e. much less than most would believe) of keen interest to become “expert-level” on a narrow subject.And, no, you can’t break enigma messages with a laptop Well, some you can…
You are right BUT it is always apparent who are the theoretical experts and who have the practical experience.
I recall my first boss who had a particularly good line – he would ask when there was a comlaint over the cost “who would you rather have the consultant with 30 years of experience of doing your eyes charging £750 an hour, or the newly qualified surgeon doing the same job for half”.
As you can imagine he always got his fee.
When it comes to it, we are all prepared (well mostly) to pay for the years of exeperience, of seeing all the problems, and of generally knowing how things work in the real world. That is worth its weight in gold.
I wouldnt be going to the newly qualified expert, even if he was cheap.
Knowledge and judgement are two different things. To be an expert you need both.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I recall my first boss who had a particularly good line – he would ask when there was a comlaint over the cost “who would you rather have the consultant with 30 years of experience of doing your eyes charging £750 an hour, or the newly qualified surgeon doing the same job for hal
There’s a downside to this. The 30-year veteran prob90 relies on his experience and may not be up to speed with new developments. As a patient I would try to find the middle ground – someone younger with a good track record and a reasonable level of experience.
I’m glad that in a hospital setting, the patients usually have little to no choice of who gets to treat them, because if everybody would only accept treatment by “veterans with 30 years of experience”, none of us younger doctors would ever gain any experience and ultimately nobody would have a chance to even gather that much experience.
That is why supervision exists, and usually works well. In settings were mistakes can be fatal, such as the operating theatre, younger doctors are always supervised.
People usually works in teams everywhere, loosely or tightly.
