My expert opinion on the nature of experts
I have recently completed a book called “The Billionaire’s Vinegar: … “. In this book Benjamin Wallace spins a fascinating tale of how a group of very rich Americans spent 100’s of thousands of dollars on a select cache of wine bottles that were allegedly linked to Thomas Jefferson and were found in a non-disclosed location in Paris. Very soon questions of provenance started to emerge, culminating in a very expensive law suit waged by Bill Koch against the purveyor of the wines, a German collector named Hardy Rodenstock. The book is well written and is a highly recommended read.
If we can't ask Mr. Jefferson, perhaps we can find an expert?
What was compelling to me about this book was just how influential was one person throughout the story. The person was famed head (and founder) of Auction Houses Christie’s wine department Michael Broadbent. Wine is a hobby of mine (though my interest pales in comparison to all of the collectors in the book) so having read Decanter sporadically for over ten years I have been familiar with the extent of Mr. Broadbent’s breadth of experience.
Ahh - Here is an expert (and looks the part too)!
As the story unfolds, it becomes exceedingly clear that the assurances provided by the expert drove the confidence in the provenance of the wine. This conviction was upheld even when the leading Thomas Jefferson research organization refused to sanction the bottles, citing historical uncertainties.
Webster (a dictionary) defined an expert as:
Expert\, n. 1. An expert or experienced person; one instructed by experience; one who has skill, experience, or extensive knowledge in his calling or in any special branch of learning.
2. (Law) (a) A specialist in a particular profession or department of science requiring for its mastery peculiar culture and erudition.
Note: Such specialists may be witnesses in matters as to which ordinary observers could not without such aid form just conclusions, and are liable for negligence in case they injure another from want of proper qualifications or proper care in the exercise of their specialty. (b) A sworn appraiser.
Mr. Broadbent certainly falls under this definition. Among his accolades are a master of wine degree, multiple awards, order national du merit (france, where else) etc. Much more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Broadbent.
So could he, an expert recognized by governments, collectors, universities and thousands of aficionados worldwide, be wrong? The story is far from being conclusive. But it does raise concern.
For our purpose here: Are security experts any better? How do we vet the quality of the expert advice that we receive?
Over the years I have seen and paid many an experts. Few justified their price. I am allergic to expert advice. The best have an uncanny ability to take a really complex subject (almost anything today) and provide a balanced view, providing me with a new viewpoint, a new way to view the problem. The best experts teach. Then, in an order of increasing allergic responses, I get the “Most people do this” (itch), “I have 2-3 options for you” (itch +sneeze), “I recommend you do this” (hives) and the worst being “you must do this” (can’t breathe, need epinephrine pen).
Security is a vast topic. There are many complex topics related to security. Some are very technical. Some are very business oriented. Few people sound even fairly intelligent on both business and technical subjects. Make sure you pick yours wisely. And make sure you qualify and apply their talent in the proper place. Or you may end up with more vinegar than security.
Note: Also, keep in mind that if you do hire a consultant/expert, try to keep an open mind. You want the consultant to be objective. So work to maintain the expert’s objectiveness. The two main distractions I find with consultants are:
1. Leading them to the same conclusion you had (and which didn’t seem to work as required leading you to call the expert)
2. Ignoring their advice or coercing their advice to fit the current thought (ignoring the details)
/al
[...] just published his expert opinion on the nature of experts. Since I DO consider myself an expert in few areas, I feel that I have to explain what makes me an [...]
What Makes Me an Expert at Security Pie
3 Oct 08 at 1:56 pm
The Billionaire’s Vinegar contains many inaccuracies, including libel and defamation of character. It leads the reader to one conclusion. The facts are very different and inconclusive, with equally valid debate and circumstantial evidence on both sides. It is a good book but it would be much less interesting not to have shaped an opinion. What you picked up on for the sake of this essay is the presumption that my father was wrong. Had the Billionaire’s Vinegar been fair, it would have emphasized that my father never validated the bottle. In fact, with the catalogue for the auction he stated that “there was circumstantial evidence but no proof that the bottle was authentic”. Whether it was or wasn’t is a topic of debate but it is understandable that you conclude that the expert was wrong based on reading the book rather than researching the details.
Bartholomew Broadbent
4 Oct 08 at 10:20 am
Hi Assaf,
I think that what Mr. Bartholomew Broadbent is saying, in essence, is that you have done exactly what the people who listen to experts do. You read the book, and you treated Mr. Wallace as an expert in the subject. In fact, Mr. Wallace is not an impartial side, which brings me to the next point.
In my personal opinion, any topic in which large amounts of money are involved cannot be completely resolved. Everyone has an interest, which translates into money. Like the effects of tobacco smoke, artificial sweeteners and cellphone radiation – there are expert opinions which are at times completely polar.
So back to Mr. Broadbent’s comment – with all due respect, it is biased. Mr. Wallace is also biased. As someone who does not have access and resources and the know-how to run my own tests on the wine, I have to look for expert opinion – and all experts are biased. All I can say is that, in my personal opinion, there are topics which we will never be able to make an unbiased judgment and hence better leave them, well, open ended – because I really don’t know and probably never will. It is, well, a matter of opinion.
In essence all judgment is fuzzy – it is all a matter of opinion. This is why we need the legal system – to take a fuzzy situation and create certainty that would allow us to convict or acquit. The process is different for each system (for example the jury system vs. judge) but the result is a clear decision – true or false, black or white. The system is not free from mistakes but it lets us make decisions and move on, rather than remain in the fuzzy area where we can’t really put the guy in jail because we’re not sure he did it and can’t let him go because we’re not sure he didn’t. A decision has to be made, and the system suffers from a certain percentage of wrong decisions but prevails because decisions are made.
– Arik
arikb
4 Oct 08 at 8:37 pm
Bartholomew – Thank you for your clarification. Point taken.
I aimed at the entire concept of what it is to be an expert (especially in the IT security space) and not specifically at your father. My point being that experts can, and will make mistakes. And it is up to the receiver of the advice to accept the risks associated with the advice and live with the consequences.
So to your point, as the catalog stated that “there was circumstantial evidence but no proof that the bottle was authentic” then your father (assuming you are who you say you are) took somewhat of a gamble with his reputation: his nod of approval is as good as gold in some circles, as was proven by the sizes of the bids. As I warn towards the end of the essay, “Ignoring their (the expert’s) advice or coercing their advice to fit the current thought” are common distractions. I guess this distraction applies here: the bidders read into the description what they had wanted it to say (that this was -unequivocably- Mr. Jefferson’s bottle).
I have read Michael Broadbent’s writing through the years and always had the highest respect for him. For me it was, and still is, as good as gold. I apologize if I have perpetuated a presumption that your father was wrong. The book suggests that it is possible, but never concluded whether the bottle was a forgery or not. Perhaps the provenance of the bottle will never be fully proven nor discredited.
But the entire affair and law suit doesn’t look good on all those involved (and IMHO, puts the entire world of wine provenance in a shady light – after all it is a highly forgeable farmer created commodity that fetches very high prices). BTW – In the security business we call that provenance ‘authentication’ (authenticate that you are the owner of the account, or that this bottle is really Palmer from 1961).
I will correct my post to clarify.
Arik – It is okay if we hire an expert to help us reach a decision. I think it is escapism if we hire an expert to make a decision for us.
assafl
4 Oct 08 at 10:21 pm