She asked what I thought about the resistance to reliable information in political debates, and I said that, while some people attribute it to an attitude of "anti-expertise," I think this is not quite correct. People are happy to rely on sources they take to be reliable--they trust people who purport to be experts, they defer judgment to people they think have relevant information. The problem is that people choose their "experts" poorly. They defer judgment but to biased and unreliable sources that give the appearance of expertise. If I am right about this, the problem is not anti-expertise but "skewed expertise." We attribute expertise when we should not.
I also said that I think voter ignorance is only half the problem facing democracy. Though we don't know much and don't reason well about it, we are also prevented from participating in political machinery that might help adjust policy to accommodate this fact. Now, not having access to political machinery might not be a problem if, as many government officials thought when enacting legislation that excludes us, government officials were in a better position to make those decisions for us. Unfortunately, politicians are subject to the same biases and nefarious incentives as the rest of us. And preventing access to participation keeps the cost of poor beliefs very low, incentivizing the sort of bombastic political ideologies that are now raging around us.
As for hope, I said something along the lines of what I conclude in the book: those of us who recognize this problem have an obligation to put our belief-forming efforts into contexts and claims that provide high feedback and high value. This typically means becoming more involved in local and community initiatives.
I am grateful for the opportunity to appear on Jamila's show, and I look forward to hearing what you all think.