Consider some related phenomena: Casual conversation norms say to wander across many topics, with each person staying relevant to each current topic. This functions well to test individual impressiveness. Today, academic and mass media conversations today follow similar norms, though they did this much less in the ancient world.
I also see "Hansonian" used with some regularity, to point out a perspective (often related to signalling) that is characteristic of Robin's mode of thought and often under-appreciated. Seems like a feature not a bug, but maybe I'm just signalling to my in-group here.
There's an economics of superstars aspect to artists selecting distinctive styles. My kids like to watch shows like america's got talent, or earlier american idol. And one thing I was surprised to learn from watching these shows is someone who is a technically an outstanding singer (someone who I thought should win), turns out to be mind numbingly boring on the radio. The reason is obvious in retrospect. And commonplace knowledge of course by professionals in the music industry. Technical excellence is perfect for a small group. But as you scale audiences up from 150 people, to 1000, to 10000 to millions to 100s of millions, you can pick the very very best to listen to. And a key aspect of this superstar selection process is being technically correct and right is commonplace at the 100M scale. So being singular with a distinct style is also needed. The market selects for this in a digital age where you can replicate music and video at will for no marginal costs. Economics of superstars. And once I realized this, in fact, I was surprised to find I definitely share that preference. I consume so much music directly or indirectly, I want my superstar musicians to be both technically exceptional, but also they must be distinctive enough to cut through the mundane or I just won't listen. This related to your point #2 above.
I'm not disagreeing with your post here. I think it's quite correct to say that seeking distinctive positions on every topic under the sun is hurting our ability to find truth. So I'm making a supporting point as to why this problem might get worse in an era of economics of superstars. There's a relentless social pressure as social circles expand to global scale to create your own (pseudo) unique voice, or else feel washed away in the billion person clutter.
Of course new tech gives and takes away at the same time. It's easier to find those specialists who are experts. So the truth in fact becomes easier to find if you so desire. But at the same time the primary media attention will get drawn to unique voices, and once the media find them, get drawn into asking those voices to discuss topics outside their range of knowledge. That's always happened, but arguable problem made worse now.
Nice post - I guess some of this is covered in the conversation chapter of Elephant in the Brain, but it seems important enough that it plausibly should have had its own chapter.
Some personal verification of this: some time ago someone told that they found some things on my blog to be "ugly." I was far more offended by this than I would be by the claim that they found various things to be false. This would be very strange if I assumed that I was caring mainly about truth.
“isms" offer not only answers for appearing impressive, but also signal tribal affiliations.
I've long wondered why people get emotionally upset when their ideas are challenged. Is it the difficulty of formulating arguments, or the challenge to their tribal affiliation?
(Those able to consider contrary ideas without getting upset often seem to have weak social skills.)
>We often try to extract “isms” out of individuals, such as my colleagues Tyler Cowen or Bryan Caplan. We might ask “What is the Caplanian position on X?”
I certainly see the word "Hansonian" plenty, though usually in reference to recurring themes of your posts and work.
> Voters prefer systems like proportional representation
Well, they rejected it in England.
Yep, I hope for "Hansonian" to enter mainstream usage. Signaling is a societal blind spot that I'm glad Robin Hanson seeks to remedy.
RE: Hansonian arguments
I also see "Hansonian" used with some regularity, to point out a perspective (often related to signalling) that is characteristic of Robin's mode of thought and often under-appreciated. Seems like a feature not a bug, but maybe I'm just signalling to my in-group here.
Einstein wouldn't have liked for it to be said that his equations are ugly.
There's an economics of superstars aspect to artists selecting distinctive styles. My kids like to watch shows like america's got talent, or earlier american idol. And one thing I was surprised to learn from watching these shows is someone who is a technically an outstanding singer (someone who I thought should win), turns out to be mind numbingly boring on the radio. The reason is obvious in retrospect. And commonplace knowledge of course by professionals in the music industry. Technical excellence is perfect for a small group. But as you scale audiences up from 150 people, to 1000, to 10000 to millions to 100s of millions, you can pick the very very best to listen to. And a key aspect of this superstar selection process is being technically correct and right is commonplace at the 100M scale. So being singular with a distinct style is also needed. The market selects for this in a digital age where you can replicate music and video at will for no marginal costs. Economics of superstars. And once I realized this, in fact, I was surprised to find I definitely share that preference. I consume so much music directly or indirectly, I want my superstar musicians to be both technically exceptional, but also they must be distinctive enough to cut through the mundane or I just won't listen. This related to your point #2 above.
I'm not disagreeing with your post here. I think it's quite correct to say that seeking distinctive positions on every topic under the sun is hurting our ability to find truth. So I'm making a supporting point as to why this problem might get worse in an era of economics of superstars. There's a relentless social pressure as social circles expand to global scale to create your own (pseudo) unique voice, or else feel washed away in the billion person clutter.
Of course new tech gives and takes away at the same time. It's easier to find those specialists who are experts. So the truth in fact becomes easier to find if you so desire. But at the same time the primary media attention will get drawn to unique voices, and once the media find them, get drawn into asking those voices to discuss topics outside their range of knowledge. That's always happened, but arguable problem made worse now.
Nice post - I guess some of this is covered in the conversation chapter of Elephant in the Brain, but it seems important enough that it plausibly should have had its own chapter.
Not just facts, but values, though these often end up hidden.
Some personal verification of this: some time ago someone told that they found some things on my blog to be "ugly." I was far more offended by this than I would be by the claim that they found various things to be false. This would be very strange if I assumed that I was caring mainly about truth.
Actually there is still an extra s in it.
“isms" offer not only answers for appearing impressive, but also signal tribal affiliations.
I've long wondered why people get emotionally upset when their ideas are challenged. Is it the difficulty of formulating arguments, or the challenge to their tribal affiliation?
(Those able to consider contrary ideas without getting upset often seem to have weak social skills.)
fixed; thanks.
>Causal conversation
I think you mean "casual".
>We often try to extract “isms” out of individuals, such as my colleagues Tyler Cowen or Bryan Caplan. We might ask “What is the Caplanian position on X?”
I certainly see the word "Hansonian" plenty, though usually in reference to recurring themes of your posts and work.