: Hi Julie,

: Interesting....however the problem with laying one's cards on the table in a
: discussion is that people look at the source and not the idea. When this
: happens many great ideas and viewpoints are discounted because they come
: from an 'unqualified' individual.

: I run into this in karate discussions. People who demand to know my rank and
: experience are ALWAYS looking to discredit me because their idea is in
: trouble and soon to be proven wrong. My standard answer is, 'I will tell
: you my rank as soon as it becomes important to the discussion".

: What about if your idea conflicts with someone else's and you are believed
: because of your position when it is the other person who's idea is
: correct?
: Isn't there a danger of this happening? Isn't this a simple way for people in
: authority to discredit others? (Of course I know this never happens in
: real life but I suggest that it could!!)

: (The Nothing) Ian {:o)

Yes, all the things you list can become problems....

There are basically three separate, but related, issues that converge here surrounding the matter of disclosing one's commercial/professional status:

1. Treating the "expert" as infalliable. (i.e. fallaciously assuming that the information must be true because of its source.)-- and its converse, the professional assuming infalliability. (i.e. "I'm an expert! Of course I'm right! Why? Because I'm the expert!") The former is foolish, the latter, obnoxious.

2. Discrediting the 'expert' on the basis of status, as opposed to the idea. (also foolish-- that can be a matter of 'cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.)

These two phenomona (as you point out) are instances of judging the message simply on the basis of the messenger (as opposed to the merits of the message.) That can be either foolish or dangerous, depending on the circumstances

In my previous post, in which I was reflecting on Nick's guidelines, I was thinking in terms of....

3. Disclosing one's "vested interests" that have-- or might have-- bearing on the discussion. When the topic is not one of commonly accepted, objective truth (where the message is undeniably the message, no matter who delivers it), but one of relative merits and/or value, then the messenger has a duty to disclose his/her 'vested interest' so that the other person(s) can determine whether those interests have shaped the message in a particular way.

For instance, if you read about a scientific study that has determined that eating eggs is healthy (which may be the case), wouldn't you want to know whether the study was conducted (or financed) by the Egg Growers of America? The Egg Growers have a duty to disclose that, leaving the judgment about whether the source has a negative impact on the message to the consumers. Or, if I recommend that you use Acme Varnish because it's the "best stuff there is", wouldn't you want to know if I was part owner of the company? In situations where there can be even a perceived bias*, one has a responsibility to disclose that. In matters of value or merit (is technique X better than technique Y to accomplish Z? Is brand A better than brand B?), the question of the messenger's vested interests (and expertise) does have a bearing on the answer... and the matter of *how much* bearing it has should be determined by the one who is receiving the information (not the provider).... hence disclosure.

If you receive two conflicting pieces of advice about something you have experience with (and thus, not basis for judgment other than your own common sense and what you are being told), how do you decide which to take? Does not what you know about the source have a bearing on your decision? And if the source stands to gain personally/professionally if you choose his/her suggestion, wouldn't you want to know that ahead of time so you can factor it in?

-----
*"Bias" is not a negative term. A bias is a slant, meaning that the information is not impartial. It doesn't mean that the information is necessarily false.

Julie Kanarr
(who has spent way too much time thinking about matters of conflict-of-interest and ethics of disclosure.)