Ralph Waldo Emerson was asked in the mid 1800s if homeopaths ought to be banned. He replied they certainly shouldn't. He stated that they might not be able to save someone's life themselves but they do make good critics of the medical profession.

Similar statements have been made over the years by a variety of people and to a large degree it's a fair call.

However, contained in his statement is a deeper wisdom which humans chronically overlook. It points to a common fallacy.

The average citizen often falls foul of that fallacy and the average manipulator doesn't hesitate to capitalize on the mistake. Salespeople, political activists, con artists and clever dealers all make good use of it. News media do also, but for a different reason.

The hidden meaning is this - those people who are good at telling us what is wrong with something or someone are not necessarily the ones we should be trusting to tell us what is right. In fact, very often they are the last people on earth we ought to be listening to for advice about how to correct a problem or make things better.

There are several reasons for this. One is that all too often the critics have their own agendas and that's the reason for them pointing out defects in others. This sometimes amounts to 'bagging the opposition'. At other times, it's just pure malice. Frequently it's a running mouth belonging to someone who over-rates their own knowledge and qualifications.

These behaviours take advantage of a common perception failing in humans. People have a natural tendency to trust someone who alerts them to a danger. They also readily believe someone who 'fills them in' about something dodgy, or supposedly so.

Smart people on the other hand, never forget that the devil comes disguised as an angel. They listen and take note, but do so warily. They thank the informant for their advice, but seek alternative opinions about solutions.

Salespeople leverage this effect chronically. In the 'disturb' phase of an interview they identify a problem the customer might not be aware of. They then suggest the solution that awards them the greatest remuneration - selling to their own pocket. A second opinion can often bring a customer to realise that the problem wasn't really important, anyway.

This amounts to fixing something that isn't actually broken, but can be made to seem like it is. In the current era of saturation media, that has become an increasingly common political ruse for grabbing attention and wresting power from the current holders.

It's very easy to believe that someone who can point out a flaw in a concept or solution must be an expert on the subject, but that just isn't true. An obvious example is that of someone who declares with accuracy that drinking herbal tea won't cure cancer. That's despite them knowing nothing whatsoever about what actually will cure it.

When a self-proclaimed healer predicts accurately that chemotherapy won't cure someone's breast cancer and they recommend herbal tea instead, there are plenty of followers who will be sold on the idea. The thinking is that if doctors prescribed chemo and it didn't work, the person with supposed special insight who predicted that outcome must know what they're talking about. Suggestions that drug companies will sell you anything to get rich therefore seem accurate and allegations that they're conducting mind control experiments with their medicines seem plausible to some people. These allegations are frequently shared on social media, as we've all seen by now. Most people possessed of common sense ignore them.

News and current affairs media often leverage this effect for simplicity. It becomes too confusing for readers and audiences if they interview one person spouting about how something is dreadfully wrong in society, but then switch immediately to interviewing another to find out how to rectify things. Continuity is essential for viewer and reader engagement. That's best gained by interviewing the same person to find out both what is wrong and what is right. It builds credibility.

In the media spotlight, not trusting a declarer of wrongness to also declare the correct solution can raise a suspicion that they don't really know what they're talking about. The trouble is that sometimes they don't. Some of the early spokespeople who raised the alarm over greenhouse gasses then went on to make predictions which proved to be wildly off target. Their reckless enthusiasm handed a free kick to climate deniers. Yet, if interviewers had questioned those suggested outcomes at the time, it would have created the impression that the claims about global warming were merely a load of ballyhoo. Smart people understand that someone can be right about one thing but wrong about another on the same subject.

There are many ways to explore this concept as it forms the foundation of a great many human interactions. Just keep this in mind.

The person pointing out what is wrong is not necessarily qualified to tell you what is right, or what failure to act might lead to. In fact, their initial statements may be nothing more than an uneducated lucky guess or a deliberate ploy to exploit you.


N.B. This is not a statement about homeopathy itself, the efficacy of which remains controversial.

Photo by Rohan Makhecha on Unsplash

Quote reference: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/615098