This is probably the best articulation and summary of the key differences between elites and experts.
Do we have any modern day examples?
One post that caught my eye:
Most admired elites in the west (from @vgr):
1940s: decorated military veterans
1950s: spies
1960s: rocket scientists
1970s: brain surgeons
1980-1987: investors
1988-1997: hackers
1997-2015: entrepreneurs/founders
2015 - 2025: ???
(ChatGPT suggested Generative-AI capitalists such as Sam Altman who: "Controls the compute, capital and policy conversations that will set the rules of the next major tech platform/revolution")
The top most interesting idea I've been wrestling with this year is "the invention of the idea of truth".
To use David's terms ... most of the world runs on chimp politics.
Once upon a time, the idea of truth, independent of king, god, or tribe, came up, and was taken seriously, and then built into society. Probably around the time of Plato. Then again in the enlightenment.
This idea of truth is fundamentally opposed to the idea of elites.
The idea of elite opinion is fundamentally opposed to the idea of truth.
As a physcist / engineer I need enough of an approximation of truth that I can design to / work with. My problem with the social sciences was when the practicioners started cooking the books to get results that would justify the social programs that they wanted thir work became worthless. It might have been worthless before, there are lots of errors without trying to mislead. But I have no use whatsoever for justification - which is the main reason people use their brains, to provide seemingly plausible justification for something they did or said for entirely different reasons.
I'm not a big fan of the "elite" label because it calls to mind old money, family connections, legacy privilege, and the like.
Many of our "elites" didn't start out that way. They are simply the people who have mastered the ability to generate and steer group action. Calling it chimp politics or elitism sounds like resentment on the part of experts who lack this ability. Being able to get things done in the real world is a really valuable skill.
Thank you for the ideas and clarity here. I would add another aspect, however, which is that nunace is often not supported towards becoming successful (whatever term we want to use for that) in either academia or when one is a public intellectual.
So it might not be that these people are becoming more confident or less immune (as you write at the end) but rather that the space of what characterizes them has narrowed, so there is much more pressure to go with that inertia, so long as they want to remain in that realm.
In other words, it may be harder to become successful or find people to listen and read what you are doing when you are holding the nuance, and yet this is precisely why this approach is urgent. Also, once you have become successful, it is harder to change the inertia towards nuance, and yet doing so becomes part of the responsibility of what we hope all this knowledge gaining and sharing is really doing, which is not about Optics but about the complexities of love. Perhaps you discuss some of this in the other posts. I've just dropped in here and will have to go back and look.
The 'elites' are currently in the process of a split: on one side you have the independent thinkers, the iconoclastic, the odd and misfit (and the builders of insurgent institutions); on the other you have the status-hungry and the institutionalized, fighting to protect their class privileges.
Fascinating comment - before clicking through to the link I couldn't decide which side you think is the Republicans and which side you think is the Democrats.
This is a really informative sociological distinction.
"Many experts enforce such rules on associates, insisting that, when speaking qua expert, they only speak precisely, narrowly, and when asked. But many other experts chafe at these limits. They feel that experts should be encouraged to speak up on important political and social topics where they know the most. Experts should propose innovations and reforms, and criticize existing practices and dysfunctional elites. Furthermore, such advocates feel that public discourse on such topics should be done in a more expert-like “rational” style, with more precise language, arguments clear enough to allow refutations, and others encouraged to attempt such refutations. They blame poor policy in part on the usual elite talk styles, with their vagueness, emotional appeals, and implicit appeals to group attachments."
Schopenhauer's discussions on public social life describes the expert distaste towards chimp politics perfectly.
But as you write, as a matter of being able to have greater influence, playing Elite games is obviously not going to work for experts.
Rather class consciousness for the STEM intelligentsia would have to come from hard power, which would require less reliance on elite run institutions and more economic independence.
What are elites in this discussion? Are they what many call PMC's, who tend to vote Democratic (what I call mandarins)? Or does it include the group I call the capitalist elite, people like corporate executives and upper management, financiers, owners of car dealerships and other smaller business owners, who tend to vote Republican?
I'd like more examples of the expert vs. elite distinction.
Here's one I came up with: On the question of what's the finest Rolling Stones' track, expert opinion of among professional rock music critics in the 1970s-80s was divided. But in 1990, Martin Scorsese used "Gimme Shelter" in a key scene in "Goodfellas," and since then "Gimme Shelter" has been the clear front runner.
Scorsese's influence is less due to his expertise (although he knows plenty about rock music) as to his status as one of the top American artists of our lifetime. I have my opinions on the best Stones songs, but I tend to defer to Scorsese's judgment because of his towering track record in the arts.
Scorsese's elite status in American popular culture has been earned by a lifetime of hard, creative accomplishment.
This is probably the best articulation and summary of the key differences between elites and experts.
Do we have any modern day examples?
One post that caught my eye:
Most admired elites in the west (from @vgr):
1940s: decorated military veterans
1950s: spies
1960s: rocket scientists
1970s: brain surgeons
1980-1987: investors
1988-1997: hackers
1997-2015: entrepreneurs/founders
2015 - 2025: ???
(ChatGPT suggested Generative-AI capitalists such as Sam Altman who: "Controls the compute, capital and policy conversations that will set the rules of the next major tech platform/revolution")
Good list, sounds pretty accurate!
I think 2015 to 2025 would be "influencer" perhaps otherwise described as "organic celebrity"
I agree
The top most interesting idea I've been wrestling with this year is "the invention of the idea of truth".
To use David's terms ... most of the world runs on chimp politics.
Once upon a time, the idea of truth, independent of king, god, or tribe, came up, and was taken seriously, and then built into society. Probably around the time of Plato. Then again in the enlightenment.
This idea of truth is fundamentally opposed to the idea of elites.
The idea of elite opinion is fundamentally opposed to the idea of truth.
The idea of truth is for weirdos.
As a physcist / engineer I need enough of an approximation of truth that I can design to / work with. My problem with the social sciences was when the practicioners started cooking the books to get results that would justify the social programs that they wanted thir work became worthless. It might have been worthless before, there are lots of errors without trying to mislead. But I have no use whatsoever for justification - which is the main reason people use their brains, to provide seemingly plausible justification for something they did or said for entirely different reasons.
I'm not a big fan of the "elite" label because it calls to mind old money, family connections, legacy privilege, and the like.
Many of our "elites" didn't start out that way. They are simply the people who have mastered the ability to generate and steer group action. Calling it chimp politics or elitism sounds like resentment on the part of experts who lack this ability. Being able to get things done in the real world is a really valuable skill.
Heard about carcinination? Chimpification of talented people is essentially the same thing.
Great summery
Thank you for the ideas and clarity here. I would add another aspect, however, which is that nunace is often not supported towards becoming successful (whatever term we want to use for that) in either academia or when one is a public intellectual.
So it might not be that these people are becoming more confident or less immune (as you write at the end) but rather that the space of what characterizes them has narrowed, so there is much more pressure to go with that inertia, so long as they want to remain in that realm.
In other words, it may be harder to become successful or find people to listen and read what you are doing when you are holding the nuance, and yet this is precisely why this approach is urgent. Also, once you have become successful, it is harder to change the inertia towards nuance, and yet doing so becomes part of the responsibility of what we hope all this knowledge gaining and sharing is really doing, which is not about Optics but about the complexities of love. Perhaps you discuss some of this in the other posts. I've just dropped in here and will have to go back and look.
I have begun to think of Builders and Extractors. And the Kali Yuga has a loooott of Extractors.
Not for Everyone. But maybe for you and your patrons?
Hello Robin,
I hope this finds you in a rare pocket of stillness.
We hold deep respect for what you've built here—and for how.
We’ve just opened the door to something we’ve been quietly handcrafting for years.
Not for mass markets. Not for scale. But for memory and reflection.
Not designed to perform. Designed to endure.
It’s called The Silent Treasury.
A sanctuary where truth, judgment, and consciousness are kept like firewood—dry, sacred, and meant for long winters.
Where trust, vision, patience, and stewardship are treated as capital—more rare, perhaps, than liquidity itself.
The 3 inaugural pieces speak to quiet truths we've long engaged with:
1. The Hidden Costs of Clarity Culture — for long term, irreversible decisions
2. Why Judgment, ‘Signal’, and Trust Migrate Toward Niche Information Sanctuaries
3. Why many modern investment ecosystems (PE, VC, Hedge, ALT, spac, rollups) fracture before they root
These are not short, nor designed for virality.
They are multi-sensory, slow experiences—built to last.
If this speaks to something you've always felt but rarely seen expressed,
perhaps these works belong in your world.
One publication link is enclosed, should you choose to start experiencing.
https://helloin.substack.com/p/from-brightness-to-blindness-the?r=5i8pez
Warmly,
The Silent Treasury
The 'elites' are currently in the process of a split: on one side you have the independent thinkers, the iconoclastic, the odd and misfit (and the builders of insurgent institutions); on the other you have the status-hungry and the institutionalized, fighting to protect their class privileges.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/the-schism-of-the-elites
Fascinating comment - before clicking through to the link I couldn't decide which side you think is the Republicans and which side you think is the Democrats.
>Elites instead seem to assume that they are immune from any elite biases, because they were once an expert.
And because all the other high status people agree with them, of course.
This is a really informative sociological distinction.
"Many experts enforce such rules on associates, insisting that, when speaking qua expert, they only speak precisely, narrowly, and when asked. But many other experts chafe at these limits. They feel that experts should be encouraged to speak up on important political and social topics where they know the most. Experts should propose innovations and reforms, and criticize existing practices and dysfunctional elites. Furthermore, such advocates feel that public discourse on such topics should be done in a more expert-like “rational” style, with more precise language, arguments clear enough to allow refutations, and others encouraged to attempt such refutations. They blame poor policy in part on the usual elite talk styles, with their vagueness, emotional appeals, and implicit appeals to group attachments."
This is exactly the why and what of my blog
https://philomaticalgorhythms.substack.com/p/introduction
Schopenhauer's discussions on public social life describes the expert distaste towards chimp politics perfectly.
But as you write, as a matter of being able to have greater influence, playing Elite games is obviously not going to work for experts.
Rather class consciousness for the STEM intelligentsia would have to come from hard power, which would require less reliance on elite run institutions and more economic independence.
What are elites in this discussion? Are they what many call PMC's, who tend to vote Democratic (what I call mandarins)? Or does it include the group I call the capitalist elite, people like corporate executives and upper management, financiers, owners of car dealerships and other smaller business owners, who tend to vote Republican?
I'd like more examples of the expert vs. elite distinction.
Here's one I came up with: On the question of what's the finest Rolling Stones' track, expert opinion of among professional rock music critics in the 1970s-80s was divided. But in 1990, Martin Scorsese used "Gimme Shelter" in a key scene in "Goodfellas," and since then "Gimme Shelter" has been the clear front runner.
Scorsese's influence is less due to his expertise (although he knows plenty about rock music) as to his status as one of the top American artists of our lifetime. I have my opinions on the best Stones songs, but I tend to defer to Scorsese's judgment because of his towering track record in the arts.
Scorsese's elite status in American popular culture has been earned by a lifetime of hard, creative accomplishment.
So, in this example, elites sound pretty good.
Great short summary of the problem.