Top Tweets for #ExPerts
@ABridgen @kheatherbrown It’s in just about everything, including cereal. Our children are being poisoned by the so called #experts.If it’s not removed from the things we consume, we will witness increasing amounts of cancers. Including
#Leukaemia. Opportunity for Cancer charities tomake lots of #NOISE
#Experts 📦🌎 @COEXPORT held a specialized workshop for the export sector, highlighting the importance of technical analysis and testing to ensure that Salvadoran products meet the requirements of each international market. 🇸🇻🔬
More information: https://t.co/s23NDLGkVg
#ElSalvador #COEXPORT #Exports #InternationalTrade #Quality #Business
📝KG
لندن میں کیا فیصلہ ہونے جا رہا ہے؟ عمران خان کیلئے بڑی خبر، ایاز خان نے لائیو شو میں پیشگوئی کردی
#Government #PTI #LatestNews #Pakistan #Experts #ExpressNews #London #AsifAliZardari #MaryamNawaz #Ayazkhan
ExpertSpotlight: Vanderbilt Index Finds Sustainability Remains a Mainstream Consumer Priority
Give this a read and connect with the #experts from @VanderbiltU today to learn more.
https://t.co/e2T1Xl2gfP
ساری قیادت لندن میں چل کیا رہا ۔۔محسن نقوی اور صدر زرداری کی ملاقات کیا پیغام دیا ؟مریم نواز کی لندن اُڑان ۔۔ عامر الیاس رانا کا چونکادینے والاانکشاف!
#AmirilyasRana #Government #PTI #LatestNews #Pakistan #Experts #ExpressNews #London #AsifAliZardari #MaryamNawaz
⚠️ Why are #experts brought in too late? The answer isn't always a fast-moving case.
Our article examines three common causes of delay—and why identifying the cause is the first step toward fixing it.
Read the full article here:
https://t.co/IQBfgHk8PX
#ExpertWitness
The way the Elite Media promoted and praised Greg Schiano tells you all you need to know about modern sports. #Experts
@NewMarketMauler "When Schiano gets a big-time hire, you'll see how awesome he is," said no one.
@InterestingSci1 Haha!
Not fully getting the ‘ picture’✅
When do you arrange a #Colloquim ..with notable
Physics professors/ #experts to explain a bit more
can also discuss the Black Hole😅😊
. @SALTEX_show has unveiled an exceptional line‑up of headline #speakers for its prestigious Learning LIVE #education programme, including #experts from @UEFA, @strigroup_, @AgriiUK, and @FootballFoundtn.
➡️https://t.co/itYePXSRDg
#facman #StadiumManagement #FacilitiesManagement
@PMOIndia @HMOIndia
@IASassociation @ombirlakota
#GenG #alvintoffler #India #genration #Experts
India's Future Shock: The Generalist Fallacy and the Governance of a Young Nation-
Alvin Toffler's Future Shock was ultimately a warning about a civilisation whose rate of change begins to exceed the ability of its institutions to adapt.
India may be approaching precisely such a paradox.
We are a young country governed through institutions whose upper echelons are considerably older, through a bureaucracy whose foundational philosophy prizes the generalist, and through a political system that places enormous executive authority in the hands of individuals for whom there is no prescribed educational or professional qualification whatsoever.
None of these facts, individually, is necessarily objectionable.
Together, however, they create a serious question:
Can a 21st-century economy be governed effectively by an institutional architecture designed principally for an earlier, slower and less technologically specialised India?
That is the question India should be debating.
Not whether an IAS officer is intelligent.
Not whether a politician has a degree.
Not whether experience is valuable.
The question is whether the architecture of the Indian state is optimised for the complexity of the India it now governs.
The first fallacy: confusing general administrative ability with domain competence
The IAS was built around the idea of the capable generalist.
Historically, there was logic to this.
India needed administrators who could move from district administration to revenue, law and order, development, welfare and public administration. A broad understanding of government was indispensable.
But a historical justification is not a perpetual justification.
The Indian economy of today is not the India of the 1950s.
A modern government must regulate and formulate policy concerning artificial intelligence, semiconductors, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, capital markets, nuclear technology, telecommunications, cyber-security, aviation, insurance, energy systems, climate technology and increasingly sophisticated financial instruments.
These are not merely administrative subjects.
They are domains requiring years—sometimes decades—of specialised knowledge.
And yet the institutional assumption frequently remains:
A sufficiently senior generalist can understand almost anything because he or she knows how government works.
That is the fallacy.
Knowing how government functions is not equivalent to knowing how the subject being governed functions.
An excellent administrator can administer a hospital without being a doctor.
But that does not make him a doctor.
An excellent bureaucrat can administer a financial institution without being a financial-market specialist.
That does not make him one.
Administrative competence and technical competence are different forms of knowledge.
The tragedy begins when the first is treated as a substitute for the second.
The second fallacy: authority is mistaken for expertise
India has developed an extraordinary hierarchy of professional qualification.
A doctor requires years of medical education.
A lawyer requires legal education and professional qualification.
An engineer requires technical education.
An architect requires professional training.
An aircraft pilot requires licensing.
Even a skilled technician cannot perform regulated work without demonstrating competence.
Yet at the highest level of public policy, the relationship is strangely inverted.
A person can become responsible for a ministry dealing with finance, health, defence, technology, energy, law or education without possessing a corresponding professional qualification.
This is not necessarily a flaw in democracy.
A democracy should not demand that a Health Minister be a doctor or that a Finance Minister be an economist.
But this exposes the real issue.
If the Minister is not required to be an expert, then the system must be exceptionally good at supplying independent expertise to the Minister.
And that is where the argument becomes uncomfortable.
Because India's problem is not that Ministers are generalists.
It is that the institutional ecosystem beneath them can also become dominated by generalists.
Then the Minister asks the Secretary.
The Secretary asks the Joint Secretary.
The Joint Secretary asks the Director.
The Director asks the officer below him.
And eventually the system produces a beautifully formatted note containing the collective wisdom of people whose principal qualification is that they have successfully navigated the administrative hierarchy.
That is not the same thing as intellectual diversity.
It is often simply hierarchical reinforcement.
The third fallacy: seniority is treated as a proxy for knowledge
One of the peculiarities of the Indian administrative system is the extraordinary value attached to seniority.
A person who entered the service decades ago progressively acquires greater authority, regardless of whether his or her accumulated knowledge is relevant to every new domain encountered.
But knowledge does not automatically increase with administrative seniority.
A 25-year-old AI researcher may know more about artificial intelligence than a 60-year-old administrator.
A 35-year-old semiconductor executive may understand semiconductor manufacturing better than a senior bureaucrat who has spent his career in revenue administration.
A 40-year-old actuarial professional may understand insurance risk better than an administrator transferred into the insurance department six months earlier.
This is not disrespect.
It is simply division of knowledge.
The absurdity begins when hierarchy determines whose knowledge counts.
The fourth fallacy: "generalist" is interpreted as "capable of understanding everything"
No serious professional system operates this way.
We don't tell a cardiologist:
"You are a doctor, therefore you should be equally competent in neurosurgery, oncology, radiology and orthopaedics."
We don't tell an engineer:
"You understand engineering, therefore you can design a nuclear reactor, an aircraft and a suspension bridge equally well."
We don't tell a lawyer:
"You understand law, therefore you automatically understand every specialised branch of taxation, intellectual property, maritime law and constitutional jurisprudence."
Specialisation exists because human cognitive capacity is finite.
Modern civilisation itself is built upon specialisation.
The more complex the economy becomes, the more irrational it becomes to pretend that general knowledge can substitute for specialised knowledge.
And yet government is often the one institution where the opposite assumption survives.
The fifth fallacy: lateral entry is treated as a threat instead of an institutional necessity
This is perhaps the strangest contradiction.
India has no shortage of expertise.
Its universities produce scientists.
Its hospitals produce specialists.
Its corporations produce managers.
Its financial system produces bankers and actuaries.
Its technology sector produces engineers and AI specialists.
Its armed forces produce strategic and operational professionals.
Its global diaspora contains enormous pools of specialised knowledge.
Yet government frequently behaves as though expertise becomes legitimate only after it has passed through the traditional administrative pipeline.
Why?
What makes a person who has spent twenty years building satellites, pharmaceutical businesses, financial institutions, technology platforms or energy projects inherently less capable of contributing to public policy than somebody whose career has been entirely within government?
The answer cannot simply be "he has not been trained in administration."
That is precisely why the two should work together.
The specialist knows the subject.
The administrator knows the machinery.
The politician possesses democratic legitimacy.
That combination is far stronger than allowing any one of them to monopolise the policy process.
The sixth fallacy: protecting the generalist system in the name of neutrality
One argument against lateral entry is that specialists may bring private-sector interests into government.
That concern is legitimate.
But it proves too much.
Conflicts of interest can be controlled through:
disclosure,
recusal,
cooling-off periods,
independent selection,
transparency,
security vetting,
ethics rules and
fixed tenure.
If potential conflict of interest were sufficient reason to exclude specialists, India would have to exclude expertise from government altogether.
The correct answer is not:
"No specialists."
It is:
"Specialists with safeguards."
The seventh fallacy: assuming that democracy requires technical ignorance
This is perhaps the most dangerous argument.
A Minister does not need a degree in the subject.
Correct.
But that does not mean government should be indifferent to expertise.
Democracy determines who has the authority to decide.
It does not determine whether the facts used to make that decision should be scientifically, technically or professionally sound.
The elected representative should have the final word.
But the system should make it extraordinarily difficult for the final word to be based upon ignorance.
That distinction is fundamental.
And now comes India's demographic paradox
India is young.
Its median age is roughly around 30.
Its workforce, consumers, entrepreneurs and emerging middle class increasingly inhabit a world of digital technology, global connectivity, rapid information flows and radically changing employment structures.
Yet political and administrative decision-making is concentrated disproportionately among much older generations.
Again, age itself is not the problem.
A wise 65-year-old may be infinitely more capable than an inexperienced 30-year-old.
The problem is generational distance combined with institutional insulation.
If the people designing policy are increasingly removed from the technological, economic and social environment being experienced by those affected by that policy, the possibility of institutional misreading increases.
The young do not merely need older leaders.
They need institutions capable of understanding their world.
The judiciary demonstrates the opposite principle
There is an interesting institutional contrast.
A judge exercises enormous authority over citizens.
Yet the judiciary insists upon legal education, professional qualification and years of legal experience before someone can occupy the higher judicial structure.
The logic is obvious:
Authority over a specialised domain requires demonstrated competence in that domain.
The armed forces follow the same principle.
Command is not simply handed to someone because he is intelligent, articulate or administratively experienced.
Military personnel undergo structured training, professional education, examinations, command experience and continuing specialisation.
Why?
Because modern systems are too complex to be run on confidence alone.
Government is arguably the most complex system of all.
Yet its highest executive decision-making structure has no comparable universal competency architecture.
That deserves scrutiny.
The real contradiction
India therefore operates with an extraordinary double standard.
For almost every specialised profession, society asks:
"What qualifies you to do this?"
But when it comes to governing the system within which all those professions operate, the question becomes:
"Who has the political mandate?"
Political mandate is necessary.
But is it sufficient?
That is the question we rarely ask.
What should replace the existing model?
Not an IAS-free India.
Not a technocracy.
Not a government of PhDs.
And certainly not the absurd proposition that every Minister must possess a degree relevant to the ministry.
The answer is much simpler:
Democratic leadership + professional administration + domain expertise.
The Minister should decide.
The administrator should coordinate.
The specialist should challenge.
The scientist should provide evidence.
The economist should model consequences.
The lawyer should test legality.
The industry practitioner should expose practical consequences.
And all of them should be accountable.
That is a modern state.
The ultimate danger is not incompetence. It is intellectual uniformity.
A government can survive an occasional bad decision.
What becomes dangerous is a system in which everyone who reaches the top has been selected, trained and promoted through essentially the same intellectual funnel.
It creates a powerful institutional illusion:
"Because we have administered many things, we understand everything that needs to be administered."
But the world outside government does not work that way.
The scientist does not become an economist by becoming senior.
The surgeon does not become a semiconductor expert by becoming older.
The banker does not become an aerospace engineer through promotion.
Why should the administrator?
India's real Future Shock
Toffler's warning was fundamentally about the inability of institutions to cope with acceleration.
India's challenge is therefore not merely technological.
It is institutional.
The country is attempting to create:
a semiconductor ecosystem,
a global financial centre,
an advanced manufacturing economy,
a digital economy,
a defence-industrial complex,
a biotechnology industry,
an AI ecosystem,
world-class infrastructure,
and a globally competitive services economy.
These are specialist civilisation-building projects.
They cannot be governed adequately by general administrative competence alone.
The future will punish countries that confuse authority with knowledge.
It will punish countries that confuse seniority with expertise.
And it will punish institutions that mistake procedural experience for intellectual adaptability.
The question India must finally confront
The debate should therefore not be:
IAS versus lateral entry.
It should be:
Why should any institution possess a monopoly over the right to advise the State?
And perhaps an even more uncomfortable question:
If the private sector, universities, armed forces, judiciary, medicine, engineering and science all accept specialisation as a prerequisite for excellence, why should government alone presume that general administrative experience can remain sufficient as the complexity of the State increases exponentially?
India does not need to abolish the generalist.
It needs to abolish the monopoly of the generalist.
It does not need less democracy.
It needs more competent democracy.
It does not need Ministers who pretend to know everything.
It needs Ministers confident enough to say:
"I don't know. Bring me the person who does."
That sentence may sound like weakness.
In a complex civilisation, it is actually the beginning of wisdom.
And that may be the real lesson of Future Shock for India:
The future does not belong merely to those who can change. It belongs to institutions capable of absorbing knowledge faster than the world changes around them.
If India cannot make that transition, the paradox will become severe:
A young nation, a rapidly changing economy, extraordinary pools of specialised talent—and a state still disproportionately organised around the premise that the sufficiently experienced generalist can understand almost everything.
That is not merely an administrative issue.
It is a growth issue.
Because when knowledge is mismatched with authority, the cost is ultimately paid not by the bureaucracy—but by the economy, the citizen and the country's future.
#India #IndianBrave #media
Face à la multiplication des menaces dans le #cyberespace, le #Togo veut renforcer son expertise nationale. L'Agence nationale de la cybersécurité (#ANCy) annonce la création prochaine d'un vivier de #compétences, destiné à identifier et référencer des #experts togolais capables d'appuyer l'agence selon ses besoins #Cybersécurité
https://t.co/wtNO8AoaUj
#Noticing has intensified as we wait for the happening to happen. #propaganda #politics #government #media #control #agenda #experts #fail
Digital TDS Meters Gain Popularity in Islamabad as Experts Warn They Cannot Confirm Water Safety
CLICK HERE: https://t.co/gtMtAxt1RL
#DigitalTDS #Meters #Gain #Popularity #Islamabad #Experts #Warn #WaterSafety #TTI
Le nouveau modèle d'#IA #Astra d'#OpenAI, utilisant une technique de #raisonnement appelée « #profondeur #récurrente », inquiète les #experts en #sécurité #IA https://t.co/uNMrTPUYdr
భూమి ఒక్కటే… తరతరాలకు మిగిలే అసలైన ఆస్తి!
CHANDRA SHEKHAR REDDY
(REU) Executive Director, Real Estate Expert
📞 8106778800
#Komaram #Raviteja #Irrumudi #Realestate #Land #Plot #Investment #Realestategoals #viralreels #Lifestyle #Land #Price #experts #Viral #Reels
@_Patriot1776Q_ All pharmaceuticals being pumped into this already delusional people has them losing their minds! The #experts need to be prosecuted!
#Experts in the Media: Why Tornadoes on LI are a Rarity
After an EF1 tornado touched down in Atlantic Beach on August 20, Dr. Jase Bernhardt, associate professor of geology, environment, and sustainability, talked to @Newsday about this rare occurrence.
Looking to know more?
Check out this article and connect with @HofstraU today if you need an #expert to help with any questions.
https://t.co/RZ5ZYIYn8f
Last Seen Hashtags on Sotwe
人体马桶
Seen from United States
monkeyapp
Seen from Turkey
Baitedboys
Seen from Israel
blowjob Teen
Seen from Sweden
momson teenage () filter:native_video
Seen from Turkey
leileisextapevideo
Seen from Netherlands
Pertinences
Seen from United States
hadonce
Seen from United States
candid
Seen from Mexico
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241.6M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.1M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
89.8M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
83.8M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.3M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.1M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.1M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
62.9M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers