Selection Bias
Who versus what
I’d like to explore a tradeoff concerning choosing what to read, watch, listen to, and follow versus who to read, watch, listen to, and follow.
An emphasis in which one (what versus who) presents the bigger risk of living in a bubble?
As a completionist (seeking reform), where should I put my eggs?
This is certainly a tradeoff I face because my time and intellectual capacity are limited.
Focusing primarily on the what would mean an emphasis on topic, subject matter, genre, etc. This would be a quasi Dewey Decimal Classification1 method.
The advantages of this would be potentially less bias . . . maybe (see below). It would also allow me to satisfy my desire to explore a given subject to the depth and scope of my choosing. The disadvantages would be insularity regarding subject matter—I would need to press myself to find new subtopics or altogether new topics to explore. It might also leave me blind to source biases as I would be at least partially agnostic to the source.
On the other hand focusing primarily on the who would mean an emphasis on subject-matter experts, charismatic (in one way or another) personalities, recognized thought leaders, etc. This would be a quasi follow-the-leader or Simon Says strategy.
The advantages of this would be specialization and economies of scale—not to mention following already blazed paths. There is good reason we recognize that success stands on the shoulders of giants. Among the disadvantages would include being taken in by everyone from charlatans to broken clocks (see below). And would I not simply be outsourcing my subject bubbling to those I follow?
Consider Arnold Kling's Klingism: We decide what to believe by deciding who to believe. This is adjacent to the fact that people very often don't listen to what elites or experts say but rather how they say it. I think he is right and it is right that it is this way. I don’t see how it really cannot be this way in a world as complex as ours.
This who > what has the hazard of charisma dominating substance and truth/logic. In-group criticism can be more valuable than out-group criticism for this reason—there is less chance someone is simply agreeing with something because it attacks a known enemy. However, there is the No True Scotsman effect that counteracts this. In that case we unreasonably dismiss a inward critique we don't want to hear or consider using the illogic of a purity test.
As aspirationally appealing as what-before-who may appear to be, it contradicts our natural evolution. We begin by looking to mom & dad for answers. Siblings, other elders, heroes (mythical and real), peers, celebrities, and eventually actual experts follow.
Both methods have their pitfalls. No singular strategy would be optimal. I think the right mix is pursuit of what through a dominance of who. Challenge your whos and always be looking to add new ones to the mix. Plumb your whats but be careful not to go so deep that one might criticize it as intellectual self abuse.
I just learned writing this post that the term “Dewey Decimal System” is a colloquialism.