When should you NOT think for yourself?

We are going to discuss this piece by contemporary philosopher Michael Huemer, the reading of which is highly recommended (it’s only 1,400 words):
https://fakenous.substack.com/p/is-critical-thinking-epistemically
The proponents of critical thinking often tell us that when forming an opinion on a controversial issue, we should evaluate the relevant evidence ourselves rather than rely on the judgements of others. Michael Huemer asks whether it is really a wise thing to do. After all, if you do have to form an opinion on some matter (as opposed to suspending judgement) wouldn’t it be more reasonable to rely on the judgement of experts? After all, they spent much more time on studying the topic in question. Delegating the study of evidence to others is not merely more likely to be reliable, it is also requires less effort because researching expert judgements is easier than researching the primary materials well.

• The experts do not always have your best interests in mind, and in some matters there may be no experts whatsoever, but how often is it really the case for general topics?
• How do we tell “no experts exist” from “experts exist but I don’t like what they say”?
• How should you decide whom to listen to when credible experts disagree in a major way?
• In what cases (if ever) should you dismiss the expert consensus?
• When should you suspend judgement on controversial issues?
• What’s “meta-expertise,” and can laypeople develop it?
• If you have one hour to form a view on a controversial policy topic before voting, then what’s your best strategy?