As a medical professional, I view terms like ‘authority‘ or ‘specialist‘ or ‘expert‘ in a different light than seems to be the norm on the Web today.

An expert or specialist, in medical parlance, would be someone who has devoted a significant period of time and effort to the systematic study, and then mastery, of a subject.

Often, such mastery would be assessed by a committee of one’s peers - and certified as such upon completion of a (gruelling) process of testing one’s preparation and training.

That’s why it took me 5 and half years to get my bachelor’s degree in medicine, another 3 years of intense residency training to get my master’s in surgery and YET 3 more years in a gruelling program to qualify as a specialist heart surgeon.

And STILL, I am NOT an ‘authority’.

That’s another dimension apart. It comes from focusing your expertise, acquiring superior knowledge and experience, in a more or less narrowly defined area to the point where very few people IN THE WORLD are better or know more than you in that area.

Then, your peers and students acknowledge you as an ‘authority’.

With this designation comes influence. When you say something, others listen - and agree, accept and acknowledge what you say and do. That influence is lasting, strong and well-founded.

Contrast against this back-drop a self-assumed title of ‘guru’, or a didactic assignation of the title ‘top 10 influential blogger‘, or a bizarrely irrelevant listing of ‘most influential dads in the blogosphere‘.

Did the awardees have to go through a similar process of training, validation and peer review?

Have they the citations or publications, research or work experience, or even just real-life results that can be independently verified by unbiased observers and standardized to meet a definition?

No.

Yet we see names on such lists and WILLINGLY hand over our trust. Let them have ‘influence’. Even place our business, our fortune or (worst of all) our thinking in their hands.

Is it any wonder then that there’s a rush to self-acclaimed ‘authority’ status? After all, when someone calls him/herself an authority, there’s a crowd ready and willing to follow along.

Is that really ‘influence’?

Maybe. Cialdini’s powerful book, “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” narrates some horror stories of influence gone wrong - and often, it is due to influence that stems from dubious roots.

Time and again, a cry goes out to define and standardize claims of authority and influence. Should there be a governing body? For everything? After all, influence can be dangerous even outside critical areas like medical, financial and legal services, can’t it?

What’s your take on this?