Consider a typical firm or other small organization, run via a typical management hierarchy. At the bottom are specialists, who do very particular tasks. At the top are generalists, who supposedly consider it all in the context of a bigger picture. In the middle are people who specialize to some degree, but who also are supposed to consider somewhat bigger pictures.
Although I think accessibility does come into play, another reason I suspect people eat up elite opinion more than expert opinion is because of the perceived status level of the participants. (I think that usually, for someone to achieve elite they must make their views accessible; but I don't think accessibility is enough to get people to pay attention without the recognition of other elites).
We are status-seeking animals. If I understand and can quote a high-status individual, I'm associating myself with them, and raising my status. But since experts generally have lower social status than elites, I gain far less status benefits from understanding and associating with them.
So, for status purposes, the accuracy of what I know is far less important than whose opinion I echo. Add to this that the vast majority of people have no real reason to care about being accurate anyway - they're not going to be implementing anything related to 99% of subjects they read or watch about. So, for most people status is just more important than accuracy, and that means knowing what elites say is far more important than knowing what experts say.
I think we can see this in action when an expert transitions to elite status, such as Steven Pinker. He now has enough status that quoting his research can raise one's status (among appropriate peers at least). But I have not doubt there are experts as knowledgeable or more knowledgeable than he is on various subjects he opines on, but who are so little known that I would gain no status from quoting them.
In fact, I could potentially lose status if I don't know what Pinker says about something, or if I try to counter something he said with a quote from someone less known than him - even if the quality of the opposing opinion is higher.
As you've written in other places Robin, I think status-seeking can explain a very large swath of human behavior that otherwise seems unintelligible. All things being equal, humans will naturally (and subconsciously) seek the option that offers them a chance to raise their own status. Following what elites say and do does that, but following experts doesn't do that in all but the communities of the experts themselves (and maybe not even then).
Which cateogory would this article fall into? Is this elite in elite mode or expert in expert mode?
Interestingly, it has done better than Scott Aronson’s post about aliens. Now perhaps that is not an equivalent comparison—since the topics are different. But still some kind of a data point.
Yes, we can certainly agree that there are clear cases of lack of competence in many examples cited. However, there are also many examples of excellent competency on boards and among other influential groups in many areas.
One point to stress is that this blog represents an attempt to "overcome bias". Let's try to live by that and recognize our own stereotypes that contribute to bias.
When we collectively stereotype elites to the point it becomes a derogatory term, we only harm ourselves at a time when we need respected experts, and the best-of-the-best (i.e. "elites") as much as ever. It's on us to differentiate between true elites, and faux elites who got there by means other than domain expertise.
Consider that the elite/expert differentiation is related to the particular sphere of activity. As an example, one of the spot on examples given in the post above was the contrast of boards of advisors with boards of directors. This especially the case with public companies that have a horrendously weak governance model leading to board of directors members selected for anything but competence with competence defined as having experience, skill and track record (expertise) relative to the value creation requirements of the company being governed.
At the risk of offending, which is certainly not intended, I find that the title of this site, overcomingbias seems inconsistent with the approach in this article.
There is a bias in this article, from the outset, toward a narrow definition of elite by the author. Historically the word elite has included those who were most skilled, in other words nearly synonymous with expert, but the expert among experts if you will. We refer positively to "elite athletes" not as those who have made it via bravado or other means, but by being the best of the best.
I think it's fair to say that the word elite has been hijacked recently for political use, as an insult toward those who only claim to be expert, but in fact are far from their expertise, now residing in proverbial ivory towers. In fact, this narrow use often is intended to take away the presumed power of such elites by reframing them as posers, or worse.
It has been twisted into a derogatory word, deviating from its original meaning and even from its current meaning in general language in other areas.
Yea same. I had no idea what the Grabby aliens post was even about until I read Scott Aaronson's summary. I tried reading it at two different occasions, and failed to finish it both times.
It seems those interested in modeling that specific metaphysical speculation have other interests not highly correlated with your other interests. Happens a lot. I like reading about intelligent design, wrestling, finance, and crypto.
East Asian countries knew to use masks, and have fared much better. There were also papers on how effective masks are in blocking spread, particularly as a larger portion of the population wears them. I also realize I am risking mind-killing by bringing up partisan politics, but compare the number of Democrats vs Republicans in Congress who got COVID.
How were the experts plainly wrong about masks? It’s not like there’s been a bunch of new, strong evidence in favor of masking that’s cropped up. In fact, there’s been a conspicuous *lack* of new evidence, given how many natural experiments were just performed.
I've been thinking a lot about this post. Have a question and a comment.
First the question, can you define "elite" more precisely? Seems like you could replace most instances of it in this post with "popular" but I suspect you mean something else.
> But columns writers take on an elite mode, where they pontificate on all issues of the day, regardless of how much they know. And readers love that.
I agree with the thrust of this post. I think this example can mostly be explained with readers enjoying having their biases confirmed/flattered rather than some elite/expert divide.
Agreed. Another thing about journalists who discuss science, scientists in panel mode, and columnists is that the topics they discuss are often more subjective, integrative, value-laden, and tradeoff- intensive than the narrower, more technical topics scientist usually target with their talks.
The fact that audiences flock to such fora despite the presenters’ nonexpert status may simply be due to more people being drawn to topics with broader impact, even if (as is often the case)) few or no people have deep expertise on such broad topics. In such cases audiences pragmatically settle for people with a smattering of expertise across the relevant fields, good communication skills, not a little hubris, and what passes for good judgement.
I think this may also capture what's going on with journalists vs scientists on panels--people trust journalists to make their subject accessible to a large audience. Popularizers sometimes come from within the science world as well.
"Finally, consider that recently I went into clear expert mode to release a formal preprint on grabby aliens, which induced almost no (< 10) comments on this blog or Twitter, in contrast to far more comments when arguable-elites discuss it in panelist/elite mode: Scott Aaronson (205), Scott Alexander (108), and Hacker News (110). People are far more interested in talking with elites in elite mode on most topics, than in talking with the clear relevant experts in expert mode."
I read your blog and saw some of your posts on this subject, but they didn't capture my interest because they required me to master your technical terminology and I'm mostly reading blogs for light entertainment. Aaronson's summary was much easier and more accessible.
You link to "Scott Alexander", but that wasn't actually him, just a subreddit for his blog, and Hacker News is similarly just a discussion community. All you are pointing at with the second two links is that more people read those discussion communities than read your blog.
Did you notice that 30 times as many people paid attention to the same hypothesis when communicated via "elite" channels as opposed to the "expert" himself?
Although I think accessibility does come into play, another reason I suspect people eat up elite opinion more than expert opinion is because of the perceived status level of the participants. (I think that usually, for someone to achieve elite they must make their views accessible; but I don't think accessibility is enough to get people to pay attention without the recognition of other elites).
We are status-seeking animals. If I understand and can quote a high-status individual, I'm associating myself with them, and raising my status. But since experts generally have lower social status than elites, I gain far less status benefits from understanding and associating with them.
So, for status purposes, the accuracy of what I know is far less important than whose opinion I echo. Add to this that the vast majority of people have no real reason to care about being accurate anyway - they're not going to be implementing anything related to 99% of subjects they read or watch about. So, for most people status is just more important than accuracy, and that means knowing what elites say is far more important than knowing what experts say.
I think we can see this in action when an expert transitions to elite status, such as Steven Pinker. He now has enough status that quoting his research can raise one's status (among appropriate peers at least). But I have not doubt there are experts as knowledgeable or more knowledgeable than he is on various subjects he opines on, but who are so little known that I would gain no status from quoting them.
In fact, I could potentially lose status if I don't know what Pinker says about something, or if I try to counter something he said with a quote from someone less known than him - even if the quality of the opposing opinion is higher.
As you've written in other places Robin, I think status-seeking can explain a very large swath of human behavior that otherwise seems unintelligible. All things being equal, humans will naturally (and subconsciously) seek the option that offers them a chance to raise their own status. Following what elites say and do does that, but following experts doesn't do that in all but the communities of the experts themselves (and maybe not even then).
Which cateogory would this article fall into? Is this elite in elite mode or expert in expert mode?
Interestingly, it has done better than Scott Aronson’s post about aliens. Now perhaps that is not an equivalent comparison—since the topics are different. But still some kind of a data point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28502188Once we can see them, it’s too late (scottaaronson.com)145 points by gadtfly 7 months ago | hide | past | favorite | 111 commentshttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28502188Experts vs elites (overcomingbias.com)169 points by asimjalis 5 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 121 comments
Yes, we can certainly agree that there are clear cases of lack of competence in many examples cited. However, there are also many examples of excellent competency on boards and among other influential groups in many areas.
One point to stress is that this blog represents an attempt to "overcome bias". Let's try to live by that and recognize our own stereotypes that contribute to bias.
When we collectively stereotype elites to the point it becomes a derogatory term, we only harm ourselves at a time when we need respected experts, and the best-of-the-best (i.e. "elites") as much as ever. It's on us to differentiate between true elites, and faux elites who got there by means other than domain expertise.
Consider that the elite/expert differentiation is related to the particular sphere of activity. As an example, one of the spot on examples given in the post above was the contrast of boards of advisors with boards of directors. This especially the case with public companies that have a horrendously weak governance model leading to board of directors members selected for anything but competence with competence defined as having experience, skill and track record (expertise) relative to the value creation requirements of the company being governed.
At the risk of offending, which is certainly not intended, I find that the title of this site, overcomingbias seems inconsistent with the approach in this article.
There is a bias in this article, from the outset, toward a narrow definition of elite by the author. Historically the word elite has included those who were most skilled, in other words nearly synonymous with expert, but the expert among experts if you will. We refer positively to "elite athletes" not as those who have made it via bravado or other means, but by being the best of the best.
I think it's fair to say that the word elite has been hijacked recently for political use, as an insult toward those who only claim to be expert, but in fact are far from their expertise, now residing in proverbial ivory towers. In fact, this narrow use often is intended to take away the presumed power of such elites by reframing them as posers, or worse.
It has been twisted into a derogatory word, deviating from its original meaning and even from its current meaning in general language in other areas.
Yea same. I had no idea what the Grabby aliens post was even about until I read Scott Aaronson's summary. I tried reading it at two different occasions, and failed to finish it both times.
It seems those interested in modeling that specific metaphysical speculation have other interests not highly correlated with your other interests. Happens a lot. I like reading about intelligent design, wrestling, finance, and crypto.
East Asian countries knew to use masks, and have fared much better. There were also papers on how effective masks are in blocking spread, particularly as a larger portion of the population wears them. I also realize I am risking mind-killing by bringing up partisan politics, but compare the number of Democrats vs Republicans in Congress who got COVID.
How were the experts plainly wrong about masks? It’s not like there’s been a bunch of new, strong evidence in favor of masking that’s cropped up. In fact, there’s been a conspicuous *lack* of new evidence, given how many natural experiments were just performed.
Status is a key social concept that I'm referring to. It can't be easily defined, any more than any key concept can.
I've been thinking a lot about this post. Have a question and a comment.
First the question, can you define "elite" more precisely? Seems like you could replace most instances of it in this post with "popular" but I suspect you mean something else.
> But columns writers take on an elite mode, where they pontificate on all issues of the day, regardless of how much they know. And readers love that.
I agree with the thrust of this post. I think this example can mostly be explained with readers enjoying having their biases confirmed/flattered rather than some elite/expert divide.
Agreed. Another thing about journalists who discuss science, scientists in panel mode, and columnists is that the topics they discuss are often more subjective, integrative, value-laden, and tradeoff- intensive than the narrower, more technical topics scientist usually target with their talks.
The fact that audiences flock to such fora despite the presenters’ nonexpert status may simply be due to more people being drawn to topics with broader impact, even if (as is often the case)) few or no people have deep expertise on such broad topics. In such cases audiences pragmatically settle for people with a smattering of expertise across the relevant fields, good communication skills, not a little hubris, and what passes for good judgement.
I think this may also capture what's going on with journalists vs scientists on panels--people trust journalists to make their subject accessible to a large audience. Popularizers sometimes come from within the science world as well.
"Finally, consider that recently I went into clear expert mode to release a formal preprint on grabby aliens, which induced almost no (< 10) comments on this blog or Twitter, in contrast to far more comments when arguable-elites discuss it in panelist/elite mode: Scott Aaronson (205), Scott Alexander (108), and Hacker News (110). People are far more interested in talking with elites in elite mode on most topics, than in talking with the clear relevant experts in expert mode."
I read your blog and saw some of your posts on this subject, but they didn't capture my interest because they required me to master your technical terminology and I'm mostly reading blogs for light entertainment. Aaronson's summary was much easier and more accessible.
You link to "Scott Alexander", but that wasn't actually him, just a subreddit for his blog, and Hacker News is similarly just a discussion community. All you are pointing at with the second two links is that more people read those discussion communities than read your blog.
How is that a coping strategy?
Did you notice that 30 times as many people paid attention to the same hypothesis when communicated via "elite" channels as opposed to the "expert" himself?
Surely there must be some incentives such that people will engage in new business practices to some degree through a market defined by a contract?