Some data points: Many incoming college freshman like “international studies” or “international business.” Far fewer like local studies or local business. Yet there will be more jobs in the later area than the former.
I encounter powerful "big scope status bias" when trying to train other folks to do productive equity research.
The naive search process is to find big "trends" and then to find particular firms playing on that trend.
It's much better to scan broadly at the individual firm level (inside industries you understand) looking for idiosyncratic things.
That's better because, a) idiosyncratic things are less likely to be widely understood and therefore priced, and b) broad trends matter less than more stable things like market share, entry barriers, and operational efficiency.
When I explain this to people - markets are super efficient and your only chance to find small quirky problems that few people are analyzing - folks agree with me, and then revert right back to what they were doing before.
And it doesn't just affect the search process. You hand them a particular company, say, an Israeli chip metrology firm, you point them to key idiosyncratic unknowns, and next thing you know they're analyzing the Mid-East security situation. As if that wasn't a crowded arena!
Man, rational self-criticism is so great. Even though I don't always agree with Robin it's so enjoyable when someone can at least make a good attempt at examining their own biases.
You can ask 'why' at various levels, and eventually they become speculative and untestable. For many these big 'why' questions are simply more fun to contemplate, because if you can figure them out they are more important, they would drive more tactics. Clearly most of this speculation is pointless, but not all. Why do I care about big issues that have almost zero chance of being confirmed or adopted by others? It's interesting to me.
You must be looking at obvious direct practical import in more fine-grained terms than I intend. We are told daily that innumerable crucial technologies depend on particle physics. On the other hand, many physicists consider interpretations of q.m. not worth the time because they have no relevance for the practice of physics. (Your version of q.m. metatheory has some minor practical significance in that it alerts us to the possibility that our world will be squashed, but there's nothing we can do about it.)
Your analysis almost entails my "solution" to why your early subject matter wasn't already well-harvested. You explored how to explain broad-scope influence, and you concluded that broad-scope subjects tend to be seen as powerful because they're viewed as strong constraints. The conclusion is a slight modification of the premise: choice constraint is now the signal of power.
This predicts that when broad-scope subjects are viewed as not very constraining, they won't be as high status. You could explain that the President of the U.S. having more status than the Secretary-General of the U.N. because the latter's broad scope isn't accompanied by substantial constraint.
I think the "large scope" fields tend to lend themselves more to tournament-type structures than small scope fields; the biggest contributions in one of those fields eventually affects a lot of applied results, while work in the small scope fields tends to be an aggregation of smaller results. If we see the biggest impacts rather than the average impacts, we will overestimate the value of "fundamental" work.
In re earlier assertions that "basic sciences" prepare you better for other fields, it might be more correct that they lay a foundation for other studies in a way that is not true in reverse; knowing a year's worth of physics will help a mechanical engineer understand his craft better than a year of mechanical engineering will help a physicist understand his. (Though the latter effect is surely not zero.) As an explanation of high school topic choices, then, at least for college prep tracks, especially with smaller high schools scattered around the country, it makes some sense to provide a common base of "fundamental" knowledge on which to build.
(How does the European educational system work? I'm under the impression it's somewhat different, but don't know a lot about it, and suspect it would be a useful data point here.)
They aren't logically identical, though it could well be that one causes the other -- that their status is driven in part because they are more interesting to many people, or that many people learn to find them interesting because they are high status.
I wouldn't say you were "mistaken" to pursue topics you find interesting, as long as you and your family managed to stay reasonably well fed along the way. There's a place for idealism (e.g. pursuing what you find intrinsically motivating) and pragmatism (e.g. pursuing what is most "useful"), and I draw the line between the two somewhere around lower middle class.
The 3rd possibility fits really well for small scope fields . My best friend designs robots for manufacturing steel products. He has to go to a manufacturing expo in Frankfurt or Barcelona to get some recognition. At the local level, the status is zero. For me, an hydrogeologist, it's the same. If I publish something I'll get some rejection of approval from a guy on the other side of the world. The community that understands the field it's so small. There's no status building in this kind of careers. Status understood as being recognized in a restaurant/airport, being interviewed in TV or someone dedicating a blog post to your work. There are even worse situations like plant scientists. They are also a small bunch and they work with GMOs that the rest of the world distrust.
The high status of big scope careers choices is because every person in the world has an opinion on politics, economy, sports, morals or religion. In the case of science, the high status comes if the topic have been long discussed by science fiction like physics, astronomy and genetics so even the most ignorant people can have an opinion and find the topic fascinating. The status comes from the size of your audience, not the ability of the expert or the audience to understand the topic.
I think a choice to study a "big scope" field looks much more practical when you consider jobs outside of the fields themselves. I can explain with an example: if you compare a "big scope" major like theoretical physics to a "small scope" major like agricultural science, it's clear that the small scope field has more jobs available. But once we look at jobs outside the fields themselves, the situation changes. For example, of the two majors, which one is more likely to get a job at, say, a hedge fund? A bank? A consulting firm? Who has a better shot at med school or law school? I think the answer is clear. Maybe this is just an example of employers sharing the "big scope" bias. But if that's the case, and "big scope" majors are then indeed more practical, is it really a bias any longer, or is it common sense?
Another reason that people might favour big-scope fields is that they are more intellectually exciting. People tend to like learning things which explain a many facts with a few simple principles, rather than learning additional facts. For instance, much of this blog is devoted to finding simple and abstract explanations for human behaviour. One is more likely to find such insights in big-scope fields. Smaller-scope fields tend more towards learning a multitude of little facts, rather than a few deep principles.
It is interesting that Robin went into physics in part because he thought quantum mechanics was a neglected area or did that come about later? I studied physics for four years because that seemed to be a door into cosmology, quantum mechanics or philosophy (consciousness). I couldn't see myself as an engineer, biologist, chemist or computer scientist, Maybe I was fooling myself, but I didn't think much of status then but thought I'd have more options if I studied physics and math.
Makes complete sense.
I encounter powerful "big scope status bias" when trying to train other folks to do productive equity research.
The naive search process is to find big "trends" and then to find particular firms playing on that trend.
It's much better to scan broadly at the individual firm level (inside industries you understand) looking for idiosyncratic things.
That's better because, a) idiosyncratic things are less likely to be widely understood and therefore priced, and b) broad trends matter less than more stable things like market share, entry barriers, and operational efficiency.
When I explain this to people - markets are super efficient and your only chance to find small quirky problems that few people are analyzing - folks agree with me, and then revert right back to what they were doing before.
And it doesn't just affect the search process. You hand them a particular company, say, an Israeli chip metrology firm, you point them to key idiosyncratic unknowns, and next thing you know they're analyzing the Mid-East security situation. As if that wasn't a crowded arena!
Man, rational self-criticism is so great. Even though I don't always agree with Robin it's so enjoyable when someone can at least make a good attempt at examining their own biases.
You can ask 'why' at various levels, and eventually they become speculative and untestable. For many these big 'why' questions are simply more fun to contemplate, because if you can figure them out they are more important, they would drive more tactics. Clearly most of this speculation is pointless, but not all. Why do I care about big issues that have almost zero chance of being confirmed or adopted by others? It's interesting to me.
You must be looking at obvious direct practical import in more fine-grained terms than I intend. We are told daily that innumerable crucial technologies depend on particle physics. On the other hand, many physicists consider interpretations of q.m. not worth the time because they have no relevance for the practice of physics. (Your version of q.m. metatheory has some minor practical significance in that it alerts us to the possibility that our world will be squashed, but there's nothing we can do about it.)
Your analysis almost entails my "solution" to why your early subject matter wasn't already well-harvested. You explored how to explain broad-scope influence, and you concluded that broad-scope subjects tend to be seen as powerful because they're viewed as strong constraints. The conclusion is a slight modification of the premise: choice constraint is now the signal of power.
This predicts that when broad-scope subjects are viewed as not very constraining, they won't be as high status. You could explain that the President of the U.S. having more status than the Secretary-General of the U.N. because the latter's broad scope isn't accompanied by substantial constraint.
I think it would be useful to try to come up with a list of counter examples, similar to your list of examples.
I think the "large scope" fields tend to lend themselves more to tournament-type structures than small scope fields; the biggest contributions in one of those fields eventually affects a lot of applied results, while work in the small scope fields tends to be an aggregation of smaller results. If we see the biggest impacts rather than the average impacts, we will overestimate the value of "fundamental" work.
In re earlier assertions that "basic sciences" prepare you better for other fields, it might be more correct that they lay a foundation for other studies in a way that is not true in reverse; knowing a year's worth of physics will help a mechanical engineer understand his craft better than a year of mechanical engineering will help a physicist understand his. (Though the latter effect is surely not zero.) As an explanation of high school topic choices, then, at least for college prep tracks, especially with smaller high schools scattered around the country, it makes some sense to provide a common base of "fundamental" knowledge on which to build.
(How does the European educational system work? I'm under the impression it's somewhat different, but don't know a lot about it, and suspect it would be a useful data point here.)
They aren't logically identical, though it could well be that one causes the other -- that their status is driven in part because they are more interesting to many people, or that many people learn to find them interesting because they are high status.
I wouldn't say you were "mistaken" to pursue topics you find interesting, as long as you and your family managed to stay reasonably well fed along the way. There's a place for idealism (e.g. pursuing what you find intrinsically motivating) and pragmatism (e.g. pursuing what is most "useful"), and I draw the line between the two somewhere around lower middle class.
It isn't clear that there is much of a difference between something being "exciting" and it being high status.
As I said, the big scope fields have higher status, and plausibly signal greater ability. So it may be a private gain and a social loss.
Yeah this. Btw. what is your opinion on CERN and high-energy particle physics study in general? Should we delay it like cosmology?
The 3rd possibility fits really well for small scope fields . My best friend designs robots for manufacturing steel products. He has to go to a manufacturing expo in Frankfurt or Barcelona to get some recognition. At the local level, the status is zero. For me, an hydrogeologist, it's the same. If I publish something I'll get some rejection of approval from a guy on the other side of the world. The community that understands the field it's so small. There's no status building in this kind of careers. Status understood as being recognized in a restaurant/airport, being interviewed in TV or someone dedicating a blog post to your work. There are even worse situations like plant scientists. They are also a small bunch and they work with GMOs that the rest of the world distrust.
The high status of big scope careers choices is because every person in the world has an opinion on politics, economy, sports, morals or religion. In the case of science, the high status comes if the topic have been long discussed by science fiction like physics, astronomy and genetics so even the most ignorant people can have an opinion and find the topic fascinating. The status comes from the size of your audience, not the ability of the expert or the audience to understand the topic.
I think a choice to study a "big scope" field looks much more practical when you consider jobs outside of the fields themselves. I can explain with an example: if you compare a "big scope" major like theoretical physics to a "small scope" major like agricultural science, it's clear that the small scope field has more jobs available. But once we look at jobs outside the fields themselves, the situation changes. For example, of the two majors, which one is more likely to get a job at, say, a hedge fund? A bank? A consulting firm? Who has a better shot at med school or law school? I think the answer is clear. Maybe this is just an example of employers sharing the "big scope" bias. But if that's the case, and "big scope" majors are then indeed more practical, is it really a bias any longer, or is it common sense?
Another reason that people might favour big-scope fields is that they are more intellectually exciting. People tend to like learning things which explain a many facts with a few simple principles, rather than learning additional facts. For instance, much of this blog is devoted to finding simple and abstract explanations for human behaviour. One is more likely to find such insights in big-scope fields. Smaller-scope fields tend more towards learning a multitude of little facts, rather than a few deep principles.
It is interesting that Robin went into physics in part because he thought quantum mechanics was a neglected area or did that come about later? I studied physics for four years because that seemed to be a door into cosmology, quantum mechanics or philosophy (consciousness). I couldn't see myself as an engineer, biologist, chemist or computer scientist, Maybe I was fooling myself, but I didn't think much of status then but thought I'd have more options if I studied physics and math.