One simple thing we pointed out in the what to expect when you're electing report for EIP was really embracing experts talking about "how such things usually turn out". I don't think people understand the difference this makes. https://t.co/mWUVCR4Pbz

We value experts b/c they are careful when commenting on things they don't have the full picture on. And that's good. But one thing I've found in my deep dive into the electoral disinformation flows is that expertise arrives *days* after all the disinfoverse explanations go viral

So the expertise that should be making us smarter socially doesn't really help. As I looked through reporting and thought about my own experience being interviewed it occurred to me that so often we're asked "What is this thing likely to be?" and that makes us skittish.

The true answer to "What is this thing likely to be?" is a mess of really dubious percentages requiring lots of inputs. And the uncertainty we express just makes it look like truth might be unknowable. People are bad at comprehending likelihoods.

On the other hand, ask an expert "How have similar things in the past turned out? and you'll not only get a more helpful answer, you'll get a STORY -- a narrative that can actually compete with other narratives.