I think this is a very important distinction: though if I’ve correctly understood it then I’m not sure other commenters have.
The easiest way to understand the difference between ‘good advisers’ and ‘unreliable experts’ is where there’s a very clear cut issue, such as
a) the good adviser is a very rational thinker, the ‘unreliable expert’ knows a lot or is even very good at coming up with arguments, but lacks a rational approach and so may not identify their own biases/fallacies very well
b) the good adviser fully shares (or at least can completely understand) your values and thus preferred outcomes etc. whereas the unreliable expert does not and is providing generic advice or advice based on a caricature of your position.
Obviously it’s likely to be a matter of degree and multiple factors, though.
I personally use this sort of distinction a lot: there are some people who I trust to have thought through an issue in a rational way, and if they are more informed than me I can use them as a substitute me, a ‘what I would think if I knew more’. There are others who are brilliant in argument or incredibly well-informed, and if I wanted to challenge or develop a position I would talk to them, as they can command a large amount of evidence and argument. However, I’m not convinced by their final decision-making—either I think it’s dictated by poor rational standards, or it’s aligned to different values.
I think this is a very important distinction: though if I’ve correctly understood it then I’m not sure other commenters have.
The easiest way to understand the difference between ‘good advisers’ and ‘unreliable experts’ is where there’s a very clear cut issue, such as a) the good adviser is a very rational thinker, the ‘unreliable expert’ knows a lot or is even very good at coming up with arguments, but lacks a rational approach and so may not identify their own biases/fallacies very well b) the good adviser fully shares (or at least can completely understand) your values and thus preferred outcomes etc. whereas the unreliable expert does not and is providing generic advice or advice based on a caricature of your position.
Obviously it’s likely to be a matter of degree and multiple factors, though.
I personally use this sort of distinction a lot: there are some people who I trust to have thought through an issue in a rational way, and if they are more informed than me I can use them as a substitute me, a ‘what I would think if I knew more’. There are others who are brilliant in argument or incredibly well-informed, and if I wanted to challenge or develop a position I would talk to them, as they can command a large amount of evidence and argument. However, I’m not convinced by their final decision-making—either I think it’s dictated by poor rational standards, or it’s aligned to different values.
Both types of adviser are incredibly helpful.