When a boss issues a new order, usually the main thing he or she is fighting with is the effects of his (or a prior boss’) previous orders. It can take time to undo their effects. And subordinates who fear that yet newer orders will come down before they can make enough changes might prefer to drag their feet, to see if these current orders will last.
Reading textbooks attentively, including doing the exercises, is unpleasant because it is hard work--so hard that most people will be unable to understand an advanced textbook. People want to read works (preferably short) with narrative flow--stories, especially stories with a moral; it is a minor bonus if the author is elite.
I think you should stick to the dictionary definition of elite. The top experts are elite in their field. There is no elite vs expert conflict or rivalry or dichotomy.
I understand that there is a self reinforcing status thing going on - people pay attention to high status people and organisations because they know other people pay attention. It also applies to music, TV shows, car models, clothing styles, and all sorts of things. It amplifies status and power within limits,, and like many feedback loops with constrained amplification, leads to chaotic outcomes. So often the high status people and things are undeserving. That includes people publicly seen to be or presented as experts. It also applies to managerial type people too.
In the end there's a bunch of ostensible experts and managers who may or may not be good experts or managers, and their best abilities may or may not be in the field in which they ostensibly are able. There's also experts and managers who may be good, probably many more than can fit into the relatively few high status positions, and so lack the status of others.
So I think I can mostly see what you are saying, but is there a better way to say it? Is it about people anticipating what others will pay favourable attention to and skewing their output towards that, and the anticipation is often cynical or based on what is fashionable?
"What bothers people most is when they see clearly low status low prestige people seeming to greatly influence prices, especially in ways that seem unlikely to last. (Elite manipulations tend to last.)"
I don't quite understand this statement. The general public reacted very negatively to Robinhood limiting the low status low prestige people from manipulating the market. By "what bothers people" did you mean "what bothers elites?"
But in general I agree with your point about elites vs experts. However experts can still have influence; they just have to behave like elites to get it.
Hey just to let you know the link to Robert Kurzban's blog on the blog roll doesn't work: I think his blog is gone now.
Your link for "Fire-the-CEO" just goes to yesterday's post. I think you meant to link to http://www.overcomingbias.c...
Really, interesting things can happen without a blockchain, and blockchain stuff can happen without it being interesting.
Yeah, fire the ceo type markets wont happen until DAO's start operating with CEO's and votes/prices can be easily tracked on chain by all and traded on uniswap/sushiswap (Too much crap in the way for centralized markets with centralized/easily regulated corps [want] to do it now).
It might happen when people want to move away from vote for everything type changes to protocols, esp in defi, but I don't see that happening yet.
Closet thing i can see to a leadership structure to visibly vote off is voting off multi-sig treasury holders by staking tokens bought at market in the protocol for a nay/yay vote proposed once a quorum threshold is met and proposed on chain.