In a discussion/argument about world events, who in your opinion has the most credibility?

Question

a) a person with a college degree in the area study, but hasn't had the opportunity to travel there

b) a person without the formal education, but has traveled in the region for business, pleasure or other purposes

c) a person without the formal education or travel experience, but is of the ethnicity/ancestry of the place being discussed

Basicially I'm asking whose opinon would you respect most, and which one do you think should keep their mouth shut.

Answer 1

That's an interesting question.
I think they would each bring a different perspective. I would trust any of them if they recognize that their perspective gives them a certain outlook but leaves them missing some key experience or knowledge of the region. The people I don't trust are people who assume that one form of expertise gives them a monopoly on the truth or on intelligent thought.

Answer 2

Wow. Really good question.

I tend to think, to an extent, the person with the degree would have a good deal of understanding about the events being discussed, depending on how seriously the person took his or her studies. This person would probably have the best historical perspective.

A person who has been there, depending on how closely they monitored the culture and and people, and may very well have the best insight, depending on how long was spent there. There is nothing like experiencing a place first hand. If someone was there strictly as a tourist, though, they may know nothing about where they were and may have a very skewed perspective of the place in question.

The person who has ancestry probably knows the least, but may be able to offer some sort of perspective the other two cannot.

Answer 3

If they have ancestry there, they would most likely know the history of the area along with the nature of the people involved, so they may be the most credible.

I would have to say the most credible person is someone who has been formally educated though. Someone who studies an area in depth would probably have the most rational opinion. If it is not in depth the native would be the most credible.

Answer 4

person a would obviously have some level of knowledge of the area involved.

person b might or might not. did they visit on a holiday (and never leave the holiday complex)? were they the guest of a local dictator?

person c probably knows less than the average joe in the street about the issues (unless they still have family in the target area, and remain in touch with them). as someone who once lived in central africa i am regularly amazed by how little 'african-americans' know about the current state of the continent. they have the usual american poor understanding of foreign issues, but coupled to that they seem to have all sorts of wishful thinking about african matters in their heads which makes them even less knowledgeable than a republican diplomat.

Answer 5

Wow....-That's an excellent (& TOUGH) Question! I would be inclined to think that- b) would tend to have the MOST credibility (& c - the least). My feeling IS, the LONGER you spend in a foreign Country- the MORE you gain a "Sense" of what's "going on" there. On site "experience"- would tend to trump- all other forms of exposure...