## Summary A combination of the [[Motte-and-Bailey]] fallacy and [[Self Infantilization]] tactic applied as an excuse for spreading misinformation, most prevalently in the context of science, journalism, history, finance, and medicine. Users of the Schrödinger's Expert tactic will speak with authority on some subject, about which they either have a tenuous understanding or a motive to spread misinformation, without explicitly posing themselves as a traditional expert. When challenged, they retreat to the position of a layman by pointing out that they never claimed to be an expert, thus absolving them of accountability for any misinformation. Essentially, this framing boils down to asking one's interlocutor *"how could I have known any better?"* This is notably very similar to, and often used in conjunction with, the [[Schrödinger's Jerk]] tactic and its colloquial form: *"I was just joking."* Though they may not explicitly call themselves experts, they do portray themselves as trustworthy, often using [[Lateral Credentialism|their credentials in unrelated subjects]] to support their arguments; to sustain their illusory knowledge and confidence, most avoid oppositional conversations with anyone they feel would be equipped to challenge them (i.e., true experts). With this in mind, their rejection of the expert mantle can be viewed as a [[False Concessions|bad-faith concession or disclaimer.]] Even more egregiously, many work intentionally to create an impression that they are a unique source of truth, exposing those that they deride as *"so-called experts"* for being naive or even fraudulent. This should establish a higher standard for their behavior and the veracity of their claims, but has the opposite effect because it provides them with plausible deniability so long as they do not directly state the words *"I am an expert in this subject."* To the contrary, they join Schrödinger's Expert with the [[Just Asking Questions]] tactic, to provide a two-layered defense: *"I never called myself an expert, nor did I make any claims at all."* ## Examples Overall, the most prominent usage of SE comes from the alternative media space, where traditional research is considered by many to be a form of self-inflicted brainwashing. The anti-establishment framing implies that alternative pundits should have arrived at more truthful claims and correct predictions than are available in the mainstream. This does not hold true in practice, however, because actually learning enough to attain genuine insight on a topic requires confronting information that contradicts their preconceived narrative. A direct example can be found in the [conversation between Douglas Murray and Dave Smith on JRE,](https://youtu.be/Ah6kirkSwTg) where Douglas Murray rightly criticizes Dave Smith and related pundits like Darryl Cooper and Ian Carroll for pontificating on topics which they either are completely ignorant of or want to spread misinformation about, typically in spaces where they know they will get no pushback. The response from Smith and Rogan is to deny that these pundits were seen as experts, despite the fact that they actively position themselves above real experts. In Cooper's case, this defense is *immediately* followed by an endorsement of his being *"incredibly knowledgeable"* about the subject in which they defended him by claiming he was a layman. ^10b23a Another version of SE is the variety of ritualistic disclaimers invoked by layman content creators when commenting about subjects requiring official credentials, where there can be legal consequences for posing as an expert. Some of these phrases are used so incessantly in financial, medical, and legal content that they are recognizable by their abbreviated forms: DYOR/NFA (*"do your own research"/"not financial advice"*), NAD/NMA (*"not a doctor"/"not medical advice"*), and NAL/NLA (*"not a lawyer"/"not legal advice"*). Though they do offer plausible deniability in a colloquial setting, these disclaimers tend to fail under legal scrutiny.[^1] Notably, these are an explicit and preemptive setup of the tactic, rather than retroactive justifications by omission. Of course, the disclaimer examples represent a broad spectrum of intentionality; disregarding the question of legality, some advice may be relatively sound and provided in good faith, whereas some may be entirely malicious. Many of the cases in which the legal applicability of DYOR/NFA was tested relate to cryptocurrency scams, where financial content creators would promote crypto assets to their audience as part of pump-and-dump schemes. Oftentimes the creator would already be in on the scam and cash out themselves at a designated time, after their audience provided market inflation and exit liquidity. Significant overlap exists between the aforementioned examples; alternative media often bleeds into [[Conspiracy Belief]] and its many offshoots in the "alternative medicine" space. Likewise, strong belief in the virtue of cryptocurrency (for those not in on the grift) is rooted largely in anti-establishment conspiracy narratives involving banks, monetary policy, and impending financial collapse, among others; in this way, it can be considered "alternative finance." Rather curiously, when challenged in court, none of these pundits seem to employ any "alternative" legal defenses. The pattern overall is that primarily *prescriptive* topics (finance, medicine, etc.) receive markedly more care to establish plausible deniability when compared to *descriptive* topics (current events, history, etc.); this speaks volumes about the intentionality behind the broader misinformation sphere. [^1]: In finance: [Saying 'Not Financial Advice' Won't Keep You Out of Jail: Crypto Lawyers (Bracewell)](https://www.bracewell.com/news-events/saying-not-financial-advice-wont-keep-you-out-jail-crypto-lawyers/); In medicine: [Belle Gibson: The cost of faking cancer under consumer law](https://www.blackbaylawyers.com.au/post/belle-gibson-the-cost-of-faking-cancer-under-consumer-law); In law: [Legal Document Preparation Franchisors Settle FTC Charges](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2004/12/legal-document-preparation-franchisors-settle-ftc-charges)