Elite Confidence

Rob Henderson has a great essay summarizing the expert vs elite distinction I discussed in 6 prior posts (1 2 3 4 5 6):

Experts are people who know things. They’re judged by other experts—people who speak the same language, use the same methods, and know the same details. You can spot experts by their credentials, their technical precision, or just the way they argue. They care about being right. They’re evaluated on whether their work holds up—whether it can be tested, measured, replicated, or defended under scrutiny. They debate each other, go deep into the weeds, and let the details decide who’s correct.

Elites are different. They’re not judged on technical knowledge but on being impressive across a broader range: wealth, looks, taste, social fluency, connections, charisma, and cultural feel. Elite institutions tend to screen for such qualities, which is why educational pedigree is also often important. … They talk to other elites—not necessarily in the same field, but from the same orbit. Their speech is less about precision and more about mood, values, and gestures. Social grooming and chimp politics. Instead of drilling down, they smooth over. Instead of proving their point, they bring people along to crystallize a consensus. They win arguments through allegiance rather than getting closer to the actual objective truth. …

Elites like to say they’re just following the experts. “We believe the science,” they’ll insist. But elites can overrule expert opinion—especially on issues charged with moral or emotional weight. They pretend their views came from neutral experts, when they often don’t. … A lot of elites, though, were experts first. …

Academics tend to stay in their lane. “Here’s what I know about my field.” But they’ll stop short of broader recommendations. They’re cautious, disciplined, trained to qualify their claims. Their audience is other experts. The job is to be precise, not persuasive.

Public intellectuals play a different game. They range wider, speak more freely, and they’re more comfortable telling people what should be done. They aren’t just sharing knowledge. They’re trying to build coalitions, shape opinion, steer the ship. Which means their language shifts. Less jargon, less hedging. And they’re judged differently, too. …

We like to pretend that anyone can speak up, offer ideas, or take action. But in practice, we tend to accept important moves only when they come from elites. And even then, only when they’re delivered in the “correct” elite style. Proposals for reforms, innovations, or new lines of research are rarely taken seriously unless they come from high-status people. (More)

Now you might think that elites would worry about being in the group known to adopt less truth-oriented habits, and try to correct for this, for example by trying harder to be more precise, qualify claims, and tell people things they might not want to hear. But in my experience, they just don’t. Giving people prestige makes people more confident in themselves, not more doubtful. Elites instead seem to assume that they are immune from any elite biases, because they were once an expert.