Speak to Elites and Listen to Experts

We so often do it the other way around.

This starts with knowing the difference between the two. It is important because, as Robin Hanson says, "Masses recognize elites, who oversee experts, who pick details".

As he frames it:

Experts are people who are good at and know about particular things. They may be trained in them, or show a track record of accomplishment. We tend to defer to other experts in similar tasks to judge who is expert at something. We organize experts so that they can focus on the things at which they are best, and coordinate with other experts on related tasks. Expert talk tends to be precise, practical, concrete, and narrowly focused on particular tasks. Experts more engage detailed arguments and admit when they are wrong.

Elites are generally impressive people appropriate for leadership roles, who are accepted as such by both the masses and a wide range of other elites. Elites know less about particular technical tasks, and more about navigating social communities. Many kinds of impressiveness contribute to their eliteness, including wealth, beauty, intelligence, personality, connections, breadth, style, polish, and taste. Elite talk tends to be more artistic, stylish, and aspirational, and less precise, detailed, or logical.

Masses are people acting as ordinary people, without drawing on much in the way of special expertise or prestige.

Top celebrities like actors, musicians, and athletes join a special cohort along with the top doctors and lawyers more generally and some celebrity financial planners, the rare economist, some CEOs, and public intellectuals otherwise to occupy a unique position as both elites and experts within their domain.

Obviously there is some tension in this since if we stop listening to elites altogether, they kind of stop being elites. But for the elites who hold no expertise, this is appropriate. They can maintain their elite status if they can act as good/great leaders themselves following experts and especially philosopher kings. Yet if you’re getting the sense that this is largely a rejection of elite devotion, you are on the right track.

We also have to always have examine any expert (elite or not) with a critical eye. Expertise is never flawless, never without strict limits, and never timeless.

The importance should be self evident of choosing wisely who we place in each box, how close to the corners and edges those placements fall, and when we reevaluate those placements. It is reflects back on my thinking in this post regarding choosing what to listen to versus who to listen to.

And where do you fall in this 2 x 2 matrix? Everyone is an expert in something. Make it a goal to make that something a meaningful thing from both directions—focus on the meaningful and make your chosen area the most meaningful it can be.

P.S. I hear the objections that ignoring the masses is both elitist as well as done at one’s peril. In that case you are taking this too literally (if not personally). Populism is a road to destruction as sure as “let them eat cake” were famous last words. The point is the masses simply cannot lead the way. Democracy is only useful as a check on power. It is a horrible decision tool and completely devoid of scientific utility. When used as a substitute for expert thought or elite leadership, it is rule by riot.

P.P.S. I suspect that people today and especially kids pursue (dream of) being an elite way too much and devalue being an expert in the process. In the extreme, which is where I think we are today, this is highly detrimental.