Comments on: Pundits As Moles

By: Bafta N

Bafta N — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 04:27:50 +0000

I suppose this goes without mentioning, but one is reminded of Tetlock’s work on media experts, though I don’t recall if he delved into deliberate conflicts of interest within punditry rather than pseudoexistence of actual expertise.

By: Norman Noman

Norman Noman — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:03:06 +0000

pundits are full of shit 365 days of the year! what planet do you LIVE on?

By: Ian C.

Ian C. — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:25:15 +0000

In the case of influencing elections, what if some of the pundits are not simply liberal/conservative moles, but actual spy moles. It is possible foreign powers try to influence US elections.

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:32:00 +0000

Scott, I’m saying that pundits are on average mistaken to think that it is easy to know which side is right in the big crises and political battles where they set aside their usual rigor and fight hard for their side. Readers should be warned that pundits have lowered their usual intellectual standards in such cases.

By: Scott Aaronson

Scott Aaronson — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:59:29 +0000

Robin, I differ from you in finding it plausible that pundits might want to influence opinion more on easier topics. Here’s how I personally think about it: there are complicated internecine disputes within academia, and then there’s the defense of the sort of society in which something like the academic enterprise is even possible in the long term. The former is much more interesting and nontrivial—certainly to me!—but the latter takes moral precedence.

komponisto, I was thinking about the philosophical part of Principia (the part Russell was more responsible for), which justified ideas like the theory of types. These are things philosophers argue about to this day.

By: frelkins

frelkins — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:34:55 +0000

@vassar

As a person at Princeton once said to me, pundits are courtiers. Unlike Versailles, the king just isn’t always in residence. But now that we are said to live in the era of the permanent campaign, perhaps his insight becomes more noticeable?

By: komponisto

komponisto — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:16:47 +0000

Scott:

An analogy: Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not A Christian wasn’t written to the same academic standard as Principia Mathematica, but the questions he was trying to adjudicate were also easier ones.

Really? Principia Mathematica is concerned with proving propositions like 1+1=2. Is this more difficult than whether Christianity is true/good?

I would argue it just the other way, and laud Russell and Whitehead for writing out careful proofs of statements that others would sneer at as “obvious”. Perhaps today’s politically-charged academics could learn something from this…

By: michael vassar

michael vassar — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:10:46 +0000

Robin: Isn’t it highly likely that the topics where considerations are most one-sided are those where judgment is easiest and pundits are most sure of their opinions? If so, it’s completely plausible that in general they most want to influence opinion where judgment is easiest.

Maybe they also want, even more, to influence opinion on some topics which are highly technical but they know that they won’t be able to do this because the public won’t follow their arguments. I’m inclined to be more strident about Democrats vs. Republicans than about existential risks because even thinking about the latter effectively requires massive background.

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:43:02 +0000

Eric and Caledonian, I’m not faulting pundit behavior, I’m warning readers to beware of it.

Scott, it is completely implausible to posit that in general topics where pundits most want to influence opinion are in fact much easier topics to judge which opinion is right. If pundits are under this impression, they are quite mistaken.

Kragen, thanks, fixed the typo.

Josh, no such talk.

wtf, no link available.

By: frelkins

frelkins — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:45:27 +0000

Punditry Isn’t About Policy