[schalab]

The talking heads point is deeper than that. Not only are they paid to be interesting.

The very ability of being good at talking might be co-related with other base attributes.

For instance being good at talking might be co-related with tunnel vision, not having a bigger perspective, being able to connect things which shouldnt be, naivety, empathy and so on.

So if your process of conferring the title of expertise involves going through the university system, or performing well in debates or on a podium, you will get experts who are all wrong in exactly the same way and there is no one to offer them a different perspective.

[lordnacho]

> For instance being good at talking might be co-related with tunnel vision, not having a bigger perspective, being able to connect things which shouldnt be, naivety, empathy and so on.

This is a good point. When you really understand something, you know what the limits are. Your mind is full of ifs and buts.

People who are good at talking, especially persuasive talking, tend to be so because they can articulate a clean vision with few wrinkles. Think of any political discussion. In reality there's a tradeoff between higher taxes and higher social services. You end up getting people who essentially argue that it's a no-brainer, one way or the other depending on their flag.

[Gravityloss]

The candidates do write books. One politician here is known as one of the "thinkers". In his books often times a problem is shown from many angles and his position ends up on some balance point. For example he might consider taxing wealth more and (salary) income less.