Overcoming Bias

Is Ideology About Status?

At lunch one day Tyler suggested the essence of ideology is which types of people should be admired.  I told him it seemed an excellent insight, pregnant with possibility and well worth pursuing.  He's finally blogged it: 

Occasionally the real force behind a political ideology is the subconsciously held desire that a certain group of people should not be allowed to rise in relative status. ... Some people on the right do not like those they perceive as "whiners."  They do not want these whiners to rise in relative status.  ... Some [left-wing] people ... do not want the monied class to rise in relative status, certainly not above the status of the smart people and the virtuous people.  ...

Ask For Help

From a new study in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology:

People underestimated by as much as 50% the likelihood that others would agree to a direct request for help, across a range of requests occurring in both experimental and natural field settings. ... Experimentally manipulating a person's perspective (as help seeker or potential helper) could elicit this underestimation effect. ... Help seekers were less willing than potential helpers were to appreciate the social costs of refusing a direct request for help.

We don't like to ask for help, men especially, because asking threatens our status.  Believing that others won't help lets us "sincerely" avoid asking.

Loud Bumpers

Humans express social status in many ways.  We show our submission to others by deferring to their wishes, copying their styles (e.g., dress, speech), praising them, laughing at their jokes, and so on.  We show our dominance by expressing desires, styles, jokes, etc. and then expecting others to show submission. 

Our opinions are part of this dominance/submission signaling system.  The higher we feel in status the more we feel free to express distinctive opinions and expect others to agree, or at least not greatly disagree.  Which is why we are so reluctant to agree with others we compete with, even when they make good points.

A vivid illustration from yesterday's Post: 

Drivers of cars with bumper stickers, window decals, personalized license plates and other "territorial markers" not only get mad when someone cuts in their lane or is slow to respond to a changed traffic light, but they are far more likely than those who do not personalize their cars to use their vehicles to express rage -- by honking, tailgating and other aggressive behavior.

It does not seem to matter whether the messages on the stickers are about peace and love -- "Visualize World Peace," "My Kid Is an Honor Student" -- or angry and in your face -- "Don't Mess With Texas," "My Kid Beat Up Your Honor Student." ... Aggressive driving might be responsible for up to two-thirds of all U.S. traffic accidents that involve injuries. ... Drivers who do not personalize their cars get angry, too, ... but they don't act out their anger. ....

Drivers who individualize their cars using bumper stickers, window decals and personalized license plates, the researchers hypothesized, see their cars in the same way as they see their homes and bedrooms -- as deeply personal space, or primary territory.

Added:  As an analogy consider the strut.  It is clearly a dominance signal, even though the rich may strut less than the poor.  And if people around you think your strut is reaching above your status, they may severely punish you.

Exploration As Status

I was puzzled to hear Paul Graham say:

Innocence is also open-mindedness. We want kids to be innocent so they can continue to learn. Paradoxical as it sounds, there are some kinds of knowledge that get in the way of other kinds of knowledge. If you're going to learn that the world is a brutal place full of people trying to take advantage of one another, you're better off learning it last. Otherwise you won't bother learning much more.

So last week I asked:

This has some intuitive appeal, but it is puzzling - why exactly would learning that the world is a brutal place make one less interesting in learning more about that world?  Wouldn't learning help one to avoid brutality? 

Tyler Cowen and Russ Roberts also posed this question to their readers, and all of the thoughtful comments have persuaded me to a new signaling view.

Einstein's Superpowers

Followup to:  Einstein's Speed, My Childhood Role Model, Timeless Physics

There is a widespread tendency to talk (and think) as if Einstein, Newton, and similar historical figures had superpowers - something magical, something sacred, something beyond the mundane.  (Remember, there are many more ways to worship a thing than lighting candles around its altar.)

Once I unthinkingly thought this way too, with respect to Einstein in particular, until reading Julian Barbour's The End of Time cured me of it.

Barbour laid out the history of anti-epiphenomenal physics and Mach's Principle; he described the historical controversies that predated Mach - all this that stood behind Einstein and was known to Einstein, when Einstein tackled his problem...

And maybe I'm just imagining things - reading too much of myself into Barbour's book - but I thought I heard Barbour very quietly shouting, coded between the polite lines:

What Einstein did isn't magic, people!  If you all just looked at how he actually did it, instead of falling to your knees and worshiping him, maybe then you'd be able to do it too!

Maybe I'm mistaken, or extrapolating too far... but I kinda suspect that Barbour once tried to explain to people how you move further along Einstein's direction to get timeless physics; and they sniffed scornfully and said, "Oh, you think you're Einstein, do you?"

Ancient Political Self-Deception

From Gene Expression:

There are certain things which are sacred, certain lines you don't cross. ... I was thinking about [this] a few months ago when I read Rome & Jerusalem: A Clash of Ancient Civilizations and God's Rule - Government and Islam.  You see, the ancient Romans and Muslims did not have kings. Kings were tyrants, and the early Roman and Islamic polities rejected such tyranny on principle. So of course, instead of kings, the Roman Empire was headed by an emperor, while the Muslims had caliphs. Get it? When Augustus defeated Mark Antony and Cleopatra the official narrative was that the doughty republican traditions of Rome had bested once more the oriental despotism of the Hellenistic world, with their Greek kings and queens. Similarly, the righteous AbbasidsUmayyads. In its place they established a genuine Islamic state which was guided by the traditions of the community as opposed to profane naked autocracy. Right....

As you can see here, the extent of the self-deception and semantic delusion is really humorous. Now, it is true that the early emperors of Rome tended to keep up the illusion that they were simply stewards of the Roman Republic with some verisimilitude. Augustus' shtick was that his was a restorationist project; he was no dictator or king, just the First Citizen. Similarly, the early Abbasids were ostensibly bringing the vision of the Islamic community to its true fulfillment (especially the Shia party), whereas the Umayyads had been worldly Arab tribalists more in keeping with the values of the jahiliya. ... Muslim soldiers were enraged and shocked when the conqueror of Spain allowed his Visigothic wife to convince him to don a crown and so indicate kingship; they accused him of becoming a Christian.

I've been saying for years that people prefer democracy mainly because they think it raises their social status - being ruled by a king makes you lower status relative to people who "rule themselves."  We can't quite fool ourselves into thinking a king is just a "steward", but we apparently can think we really rule because we elect our rulers.

Added 2Apr:  Nazi Hermann Göring:

Oh, [democracy] is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.  [HT Caplan] 

Connections Versus Insight

Consider a fashion in music, clothes, tech, research topics, or most anything.  You could use this fashion at five possible times:

1. Well before it is fashionable.
2. When it is first fashionable.
3. Before popularity peaks.
4. After popularity peaks.
5. Long after it is fashionable.

These five usage times can signal five positive features:

1. Insight into what will be in fashion.
2. Power to make people follow a your fashion concept.
3. Connections to people who learn of fashion early.
4. Cooperativeness in trying to match others.
5. Strong behavior habits.

Now people who value insight highly often assume that earlier usage of a fashion is always a more positive signal.  But most people see using something well before it is fashionable to be a bad sign - yes it shows your insight, but it also shows your lack of power and connections. 

This is even true in academia, where people claim to value insight highly; really, even academics value power and connections more than insight.  Don't assume you will be rewarded for working on a research concept well before it is fashionable.

Added 24Jan:  To clarify, I mean that even if you do have genuine insight about what will be fashionable, but not power or connections, then on average, considering both your rewards when you work on a yet-to-be-fashionable topic and later when it becomes fashionable, you'd have been better rewarded if you worked on something else.

T.S. Eliot Quote

Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.   T. S. Eliot, The Cocktail Party, (1974), p. 111   

Well put.  Found here. 

Choose: Credit or Influence

When I started at Lockheed Research in 1985, my mentor was a veteran who explained his secret for getting funding from the other Lockheed divisions:

Find an idea for a project we could do for them, but don't tell them the idea.  Instead break the idea into a few key parts, describe the parts to them, and let them put the parts together into the total idea.  They will be much more willing to fund a project that is their idea. 

Some advise academics not to post working papers, as others might steal your ideas.  Many fiction writers are afraid editors will steal their ideas.  Many are afraid that venture capitalists will steal their business idea instead of funding their team. 

Howard Aiken said "Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats."  I don't think it is quite that simple - people can and do steal ideas.  But if what you want is influence, instead of credit, the choice should be easy: you should want people to steal your ideas.  So think about it: how much do you or should you care about credit, versus influence? 

Blind Elites

We have many clues that hint at the intelligence of the people around us.  These clues include the size of their vocabulary, the wit of their jokes, and the insight of their observations.  These clues, however, are less useful for distinguishing the intelligence of people who are smarter than us; we may not get their joke, understand their insight, or recognize their big word.  We might rely on evaluations of people smarter that us, but this just moves the problem back a level. 

This encourages assortative mating, because, for example, only the smartest women can can tell clearly who are the smartest men.  And it often makes it hard to reward people who are smarter than elites.  Yes, in some areas of life, like chess, intelligence may reveal itself quickly in better outcomes.  But usually, one has relatively little to gain by acting smarter than elites; elites usually can't tell the difference, and if they can they may resent you for making them look bad.  You may well be better off hiding your extra intelligence, finding an area where the elites are smarter than you, or finding an area where better outcomes quickly show smarts. 

Arbitrary fluctuations in who are the elites in an area can thus change whether smart people are attracted to that area.  And the possibility of such fluctuations pushes smart people toward areas where better outcomes quickly reveal intelligence.  This is a plausible explanation for why smart people tend to prefer mathematical areas.  I quickly learned as a new teacher that my students were just as bad at math as at writing, but they preferred writing assignments because they could not as easily see that their writing was bad; math reveals intelligence more clearly.  Of course this effect could induce people to rely too much on math; people may prefer to show their smarts at the expense of being useful.