Emerson's deeper wisdom overlooked by humanity
In the mid-1800s, Ralph Waldo Emerson was asked whether homeopaths should be banned. He responded that they shouldn’t, noting that while homeopaths might not be able to save lives themselves, they serve as effective critics of the medical profession. Many have echoed this sentiment over the years, and to a large extent, it holds true.
But Emerson’s statement contains a deeper wisdom—one that often goes unrecognized. It highlights a common fallacy that many people fall for, one that skilled manipulators eagerly exploit. Salespeople, political activists, con artists, and even news media know how to capitalize on this mistake, although the media do so for different reasons.
The hidden truth is this: Those who are good at pointing out what is wrong are not necessarily the ones we should trust to tell us what is right. In fact, they are often the last people we should turn to for solutions.
Why? Because critics frequently have their own agendas. Sometimes, they highlight flaws simply to undermine their opposition or out of sheer malice. Other times, they may just be overconfident in their supposed expertise.
Humans have a natural tendency to trust those who alert them to dangers or expose shady dealings. Yet, as the saying goes, the devil can come disguised as an angel. Wise individuals listen and take note, but they remain cautious. They thank the informant but always seek alternative perspectives before making decisions.
Salespeople exploit this psychological bias all the time. During the "disturb" phase of a sales pitch, they identify a problem the customer might not have noticed, then offer a solution that benefits them financially. Often, a second opinion reveals that the problem wasn’t significant in the first place.
This is the essence of fixing something that isn’t broken, making it seem urgent when it isn’t. In today’s media-driven world, it’s a common political strategy for gaining attention and seizing power from incumbents.
The idea that someone who points out flaws must be an expert is deceptively easy to believe. Yet, it’s far from true. Take, for instance, a person who confidently states that drinking herbal tea won’t cure cancer. They may be correct, but they likely know nothing about what actually will work.
Consider a self-proclaimed healer who accurately predicts that chemotherapy won’t cure a particular patient’s breast cancer and then recommends herbal tea instead. Many people buy into this supposed insight, reasoning that if doctors prescribed chemo and it failed, the healer must have special knowledge. Claims that pharmaceutical companies are just out to make money—and wild allegations of mind control experiments—gain traction on social media. Fortunately, most people with common sense dismiss these theories.
News and current affairs media leverage this dynamic for a different reason: simplicity. It’s confusing for audiences if a broadcast features one person ranting about what’s wrong, only to then switch to someone else for a solution. To maintain viewer engagement, it’s more effective to have the same person provide both the problem and the answer. This builds a sense of authority, even if it’s undeserved.
However, this approach creates a false sense of expertise. When a person in the media spotlight criticizes something but isn’t trusted to offer a solution, it can raise doubts about their credibility. The truth is that sometimes, these critics don’t know what they’re talking about. For example, some early climate change advocates made wildly inaccurate predictions, undermining their own credibility and giving ammunition to climate deniers. Interviewers at the time hesitated to challenge these forecasts, fearing it would make climate change warnings look exaggerated. Smart people recognize that someone can be right about one thing and completely wrong about another.
This concept plays a major role in human interactions. Always remember: The person pointing out what is wrong isn’t automatically qualified to tell you what is right—or what will happen if nothing changes. Their statements could be nothing more than lucky guesses or deliberate attempts to mislead you.
Note: This is not a commentary on homeopathy itself, the efficacy of which remains a controversial subject.
Photo by Rohan Makhecha on Unsplash
Quote reference: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/615098
Note: All intellectual content is completely the work of the author.
- - ArgueGuru - -