I’m quoting Jeff Tucker, but it’s the same here (or moreso), סדנא דארעא חד הוא:
Entering into the upper echelons of opinion making, whether in academia or media or civil society generally, requires three types of training. First, you need to develop expertise in some area or at least be able to present evidence that other experts regard you as an expert. Second, you need to show evidence that you can speak the rarified form of language that is reserved to elite opinion, which has its own special vocabulary for communication and cultural signalling. And third, you need to develop proficiency in knowing what to say and believe.
This is what advanced training amounts to. Master all three, and you cross into a different realm from that inhabited by the rabble. Staying in that place requires close adherence to the rules and the presentation of ongoing evidence that you are willing to play the game, even better if you strongly believe in the game itself.
There is a narrow bound of opinion holding that pertains at all times. In moments of genuine crisis – disruptive political leaders, wars, huge legislative changes, trade agreements, pandemic responses – when the stakes grow much higher, the enforcement of these rules becomes much more strict. The slightest deviation raises eyebrows and reduces trust in your reliability.
Everyone in these realms knows what to do and say. That’s not even a question. The issue becomes: what does one do when the intellect and conscience conspire to lead one into a position of dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy? That’s when you have to size up the costs and benefits of courage. The costs are overwhelming: the risk of power, position, material support, reputation, and legacy. The benefits come down to the feeling of having done the right thing.