Katja Grace and I talked a bit recently about a possible “big scope status bias”, and she wrote a post on one of the ideas we discussed: I’m not convinced that more abstract things are more statusful in general, or that it would be surprising if such a trend were fairly imprecise. However supposing they are and it was, here is an explanation for why some especially abstract things seem silly. … Abstract rethinking of common concepts is easily mistaken for questioning basic assumptions. Abstract questioning of basic assumptions really is questioning basic assumptions. And questioning basic assumptions has a strong surface resemblance to not knowing about basic truths, or at least not having a strong gut feeling that they are true. (
I think the explanation is that the employees gain status by association with a company that is associated with high-status consultants. So they don't want to subject the consultants to ridicule.
The question then becomes how it is possible that the status of hired consultants is not immediately lowered to that of the boss in the eyes of the employees, or do they not know that the consultants are only paid to support pre-made decisions (beats me how they could stay oblivious to that fact, but perhaps there's a rational explanation). So in other words what prevents the opponents of the boss from hiring their own consultants or exposing the boss' consultants as nothing more than managerial mercenaries?
This seems a good explanation for why firms so often pay prestigious outsiders to support pre-made decisions, because that prestige is especially important to resist the ridicule response.
I worked at McKinsey & Company for two years out of school and, reading your post (and the one from earlier), there would seem to me to be a lot of truth to Robin's claim --- or maybe it's an observation -- of a 'big scope status bias', at least in that particular (but sizable) niche within the business world.
Management consultants are regarded as high status by their clients, who, for the most part, are comprised of managers and sundry direct reports and employees at American operating companies. This is not because mgmt. consultants have a better understanding of the 'basic things' that go into the day-to-day operation of the client's business (the opposite is always true), but rather because the consultants are, as the theory goes, able to look up 'out of the weeds' and question 'basic assumptions' about a problem or situation.
Most consultants come with the pedigree and 'presence' to intimidate most of their client audiences (above and beyond the intimidation that comes with the knowledge that your boss is the one that hired them), but consultants' big-scope philosophizing does also at times end with ridicule, when clients with a well-trained BS detector cut through the clutter of a PowerPoint deck to expose the hollow shell underneath.
Speaking from personal experience here, in the business world, the highest status folks (or the folks who rise fastest into high status positions) are never the line accountants and operators who know every number or know where all the bodies are buried, but the individuals who are the most confident and articulate around big scope ideas, like strategy, competitive analysis, corporate 'vision', etc.
If they have higher status than philosophers, it is only because they (we?) have won it in rational discourse over centuries
How then do you explain where folks believe clerics over physicists?
Physicists attained their current high status because of the H-bomb. Remember, status derives from power (very helpful maxim), and an atomic bomb could harm even Superman.
In a debate between a philosopher and physicist, you would have to look hard at the problem being debated. The philosopher will overestimate his own authoritativeness on substantial matters; the physicist might fail completely to grasp the problem (and address a different one).
----
To R.H:
it is so tempting to reject by ridicule, insinuating that the bidder is stupid and silly
The reason it is so tempting is that the two efforts have similar surface features (as Katja wrote).
All this reminds me that status allocation works pretty well. If you are some dude who doesn't think much about abstract stuff, then a good rule of thumb is that philosophers might or might not be talking sense. When deciding a nice crisp disagreement between philosophers and physicists, the rule of thumb favours the physicists. If they have higher status than philosophers, it is only because they (we?) have won it in rational discourse over centuries.
I think the explanation is that the employees gain status by association with a company that is associated with high-status consultants. So they don't want to subject the consultants to ridicule.
The question then becomes how it is possible that the status of hired consultants is not immediately lowered to that of the boss in the eyes of the employees, or do they not know that the consultants are only paid to support pre-made decisions (beats me how they could stay oblivious to that fact, but perhaps there's a rational explanation). So in other words what prevents the opponents of the boss from hiring their own consultants or exposing the boss' consultants as nothing more than managerial mercenaries?
This seems a good explanation for why firms so often pay prestigious outsiders to support pre-made decisions, because that prestige is especially important to resist the ridicule response.
I worked at McKinsey & Company for two years out of school and, reading your post (and the one from earlier), there would seem to me to be a lot of truth to Robin's claim --- or maybe it's an observation -- of a 'big scope status bias', at least in that particular (but sizable) niche within the business world.
Management consultants are regarded as high status by their clients, who, for the most part, are comprised of managers and sundry direct reports and employees at American operating companies. This is not because mgmt. consultants have a better understanding of the 'basic things' that go into the day-to-day operation of the client's business (the opposite is always true), but rather because the consultants are, as the theory goes, able to look up 'out of the weeds' and question 'basic assumptions' about a problem or situation.
Most consultants come with the pedigree and 'presence' to intimidate most of their client audiences (above and beyond the intimidation that comes with the knowledge that your boss is the one that hired them), but consultants' big-scope philosophizing does also at times end with ridicule, when clients with a well-trained BS detector cut through the clutter of a PowerPoint deck to expose the hollow shell underneath.
Speaking from personal experience here, in the business world, the highest status folks (or the folks who rise fastest into high status positions) are never the line accountants and operators who know every number or know where all the bodies are buried, but the individuals who are the most confident and articulate around big scope ideas, like strategy, competitive analysis, corporate 'vision', etc.
If they have higher status than philosophers, it is only because they (we?) have won it in rational discourse over centuries
How then do you explain where folks believe clerics over physicists?
Physicists attained their current high status because of the H-bomb. Remember, status derives from power (very helpful maxim), and an atomic bomb could harm even Superman.
In a debate between a philosopher and physicist, you would have to look hard at the problem being debated. The philosopher will overestimate his own authoritativeness on substantial matters; the physicist might fail completely to grasp the problem (and address a different one).
----
To R.H:
it is so tempting to reject by ridicule, insinuating that the bidder is stupid and silly
The reason it is so tempting is that the two efforts have similar surface features (as Katja wrote).
All this reminds me that status allocation works pretty well. If you are some dude who doesn't think much about abstract stuff, then a good rule of thumb is that philosophers might or might not be talking sense. When deciding a nice crisp disagreement between philosophers and physicists, the rule of thumb favours the physicists. If they have higher status than philosophers, it is only because they (we?) have won it in rational discourse over centuries.