When will we next be able to go to a movie with friends? Should I plan a trip in September? How long will kids be kept from school?

It is hardest to adjust to the levels of uncertainty during this pandemic. If we just had a firm knowledge of when this would end—that it would end—it seems the lockdown more bearable.

Unfortunately, we find ourselves short on not just toilet paper, but knowledge. There is still much debate about the numbers of those infected or likely. There is much to learn about how to treat the sick. There are always great unknowns about how to help prevent infection among those who appear well. There's reasonable disagreement on the best policies to pursue, whether about health care, economics, or supply distribution. Although scientists worldwide are working hard and in concert to address these questions, final answers are some ways away.

“...ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge...”

― Charles Darwin

Also in short supply is the realization of how little we know. Just superficial analysis of social or traditional media reveals many people expressing themselves with way more confidence than they should. Predictions from Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution, who falsely claims expertise in epidemiology, were proven false within a week. Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, has no regrets contradicting the White House response, with no subject matter expertise or training. With no training, White House trade advisor Peter Navarro has few of the tools required to assess the medical science on which he is advising. But that doesn't stop them from speaking authoritatively about topics in which they aren't an expert.

Significantly less spectacular examples of overconfidence are everywhere. We find them in our algorithmically generated social media feeds, to our chosen 24-hour edutainment sources. Many commentators speak as though they know what policy approach is best in the face of the coronavirus. Nobody is yet in a position to know. The suggestion here is not to postpone decision-making until we know all the facts: often, the toughest decisions are made with imperfect information. It is to say that we won't know what happened and what worked until after the outbreak is over and temporary measures lifted.

Retired four-star general and former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell had a rule of thumb: collect 40% to 70% of available facts and data, then go with your gut. According to him, working with less than 40% of the facts meant taking a poor gamble with obvious potential disadvantages. Conversely, gathering all data beyond a level of 70% confidence meant a window of opportunity closed and the enemy or competition capitalized on your hesitation.

Frequent expressions of supreme confidence might seem odd in light of our obvious and inevitable ignorance about a new threat. The thing about overconfidence, though, is that it afflicts most of us much of the time. Overconfidence has been called the most "pervasive and potentially catastrophic" of all the cognitive biases. The research has led to findings that are, at the same time, hilarious and depressing. In one classic study, for example, 93 percent of U.S. drivers claimed to be more skillful than the median—which is not possible.

That includes experts. We need a dose of humility. We need to genuinely embrace that our knowledge is always temporary and incomplete. Being a genuine expert involves not just knowledge of certainty but also knowing the limits of your knowledge and expertise. Expertise is the dance between certainty and uncertainty. It requires both cognitive and metacognitive skills. Experts should not hold back their opinions or lack conviction. Data supports some notions better than others. But real experts are measured in their responses. Utilizing the right amount of evidence justifies their confidence.

Compare Epstein, Kushner, and Navarro's arrogance to medical statistician Robert Grant, who tweeted:

Being a true expert requires knowing things about the world but also knowing the limits of our knowledge and expertise. There has never been a better time to practice the virtue of humility. This is particularly true for those with any skill that want to be useful and relevant. We do no one any favors pretending to know more than we do.

There has never been a better time to separate those who operate from well-researched information from the charlatans who offer little more than misdirection and confusion. The latter is sadly more frequent, in part because they make for good ratings. Given how information is presented, where both have equal billing on a common platform, it's increasingly hard to tell them apart. Paying attention to the confidence with which they speak provides essential indicators. It is safe to say that those who speak with high confidence, without access to relevant information, experience, and required to process it can be classified among the charlatans.

If knowledge, expertise, and training do not protect against overconfidence, what does? There is one thing that everyone can do. Research advises us to embrace empathy and understanding. Consider the reasons that you may be wrong. Reducing overconfidence in yourself or others, requires us to ask: How are we mistaken? What conditions might my conclusions be incorrect? These questions are hard because we generally enter discussions attempting to prove we are right. Engaging in thinking exercises that we might fail brings up our vulnerabilities. Being vulnerable reduces our overconfidence and increases our sense of humility with our expertise.

We should continue to have our opinions and to express them with conviction. But people with genuine expertise express themselves in a way that mirrors their limitations. All of us who want to be taken seriously would do well to demonstrate the virtue of humility.