This is one of your best. I'm a scientist and it has pained me to see science losing credibility in the public eye. Your distinction between experts and elites helps to square this circle.
"Even Nobel Prize winners—arguably the peak of expert success—often try to make the leap. Once they win, many of them start writing op-eds, weighing in on topics far outside their field."
In Aristotelian terms, experts (ostensibly) persuade by logos, elites persuade by ethos. In the various arenas of public discourse in our complex world, the *appearance* of logos still works, but it's really ethos that does, by far, the bulk of heavy lifting.
What I think is not obvious from this essay is that this is perhaps optimal. It is easy to say: "Look at all those people who know nothing, do nothing, and manage everything."
But once you work with any group of people - especially experts - their stark inability to work together is laid bare. It is very hard to build things when you have uncoordinated, isolated experts who are weak in communication and collaboration. You need politicians to bridge the gap.
Individual experts can build small things by themselves, but putting together big things takes a very large, diverse group of experts over long periods of time. This is very hard to do!
I like to say that obviously nobody wants bad politicians, just like they don't want bad experts. But they all want good politicians, because when you lack them, infighting and information siloing is the result.
You make a good point - experts are often poor communicators and have their own narrow and selfish motives. They can work at cross purposes and prevent forward movement. A successful manager is the one who can get all the horses to pull the cart in the same direction.
You could also argue that good leaders are simply experts in what leadership entails, here described as being "elite". But I can think of a few examples of people who better fit the expert mould, and even lack the social finesse expected of leaders, but still are great leaders and coordinators. Jackie Fisher of the Royal Navy springs to mind.
In the areas I know about, from my career in computing and VC tech investing, technology experts of all kinds including academia and big tech, are nothing but trend-followers. There is decades-long incompetence built into tech, which no amount of failure is able to dislodge. Most innovation is created by small, desperate groups who do things that actually work -- then when they succeed, the usual incompetence takes over, ignoring the methods that enabled the innovation to be created in the first place. I have written about this extensively, but the brain-dead status quo continues to rule. Here is my work, with extensive examples.
fauci was a complete expert....he failed in his transition to elite status. einstein managed it, schweitzer managed it, edison made it, but it mostly doesn't happen....
Huh. My impression was (is) that Fauci was far more elite than expert. He stage managed everything adeptly under two different administrations and came out on the cover of Time magazine, yet so many of his pronouncements were wrong, or self aggrandizing, or both. I suppose it's true that he at first was dubious about masking and lockdowns ... you could argue he changed his mind as an expert responding to the mood of the elites ... but at this point I wonder what his actual expertise was (besides self promotion).
I disagree. It was likely just as ann & stanley said.
If one is neither in denial nor working for the elite, one can now find plenty of evidence of his activity managing his elite status, expertise be damned.
He failed not because of a failure to transition, but because the world has changed.
Overall this was very enlightening. I think, however, that early in COVID the approach was correct and the elite appropriately listened to expert consensus in the face of crisis. Later on the experts could have benefitted from a more “elite” approach and could have used more of their broader understanding.
Also, another major problem in the 21st century is that the elites get to cherry pick and promote experts who agree with them. This has been an issue since antiquity, but it now threatens to remove any trace of expert independence.
This phenomenon has been hiding in plain sight from me. I was discussing Gregg Popovitch in another forum, he was the coach of the San Antonio Spurs NBA team who quit due to stroke. He was obviously an expert in his domain, pro basketball, but joined the elites in advocating masking and covid vaccines, subjects he knew nothing about and made no attempt to understand. Now it is becoming likely that the vaccines increase the risk of strokes and he may have been a victim of his own advice.
I also thought of Fauci, as did another commenter here. He did in fact offer expert opinion as late as February 2020 when he wrote in JAMA that the CFR for covid may be similar to the flu. John Ioannides supported that in mid March with data from the Diamond princess. Fauci had also previously said masks didn’t work.
But by the end of March he was all in with the ‘elites’. The fact that he lied so easily is strong evidence he’s a sociopath, but that didn’t matter as long as he was a competent expert.
The next question is why our ‘elites’ are so often fools, but that is a subject for another day.
I am skeptical about elites and experts who opine outside their domain. I especially disdain professional athletes who offer their opinion on socio-political matters. Except Michael Jordan as a businessman when he said that "conservatives buy sneakers too".
By my professional background, education and avocation I might have been a member of the elite, but for being raised in a blue-collar working-class community. My father was a master electrician in a shoe factory. I worked for a year and half with him and his friends. The audience for the Rob Henderson Newsletter would likely be offended by the terms of art that these folks spoke of their so-called betters. (Rob may know!) I express my disdain far more gracefully. As a member in good standing of the bullshit class, I, however, can tell a bullshitter a mile away. I have developed skills along the way.
Does much of this mean elites have leadership skill and become leaders while experts tend to be employed by leaders and don’t necessarily cultivate leadership or become leaders?
Your listed traits of elites are reminiscent of books on leadership traits necessary to be a leader.
The issue I have with this interpretation is imagining expert and elite as separate creatures. In truth, they often wear each other’s faces—sometimes in the same moment, always over time. No clear line divides them.
This was a very depressing - although accurate - read. I'd be interested in your take on how elites can banish experts to "the masses" status, what conditions cause that and if there is any way to stop that.
This is an amusing article, and helpful. I recall back in the times of COVID my daughter was out and about with a pack of friends, in out of our house and their houses with no restrictions, like an old fashioned summer before kids all went to day camps. Because their parents were all doctors and knew the kids not getting together posed more risks than the kids getting together. She wasn't allowed to play with the friends whose parents _weren't_ doctors, because they believed the... well, I guess now you've clarified it: the elites, not the experts.
I used to be an expert at work. I enjoyed it. I would probably not have liked becoming an elite, so it's a good thing I didn't.
This is one of your best. I'm a scientist and it has pained me to see science losing credibility in the public eye. Your distinction between experts and elites helps to square this circle.
"Even Nobel Prize winners—arguably the peak of expert success—often try to make the leap. Once they win, many of them start writing op-eds, weighing in on topics far outside their field."
Dunning and Kruger had it right......
Agreed. One certainly doesn't need to be stupid.
In Aristotelian terms, experts (ostensibly) persuade by logos, elites persuade by ethos. In the various arenas of public discourse in our complex world, the *appearance* of logos still works, but it's really ethos that does, by far, the bulk of heavy lifting.
What I think is not obvious from this essay is that this is perhaps optimal. It is easy to say: "Look at all those people who know nothing, do nothing, and manage everything."
But once you work with any group of people - especially experts - their stark inability to work together is laid bare. It is very hard to build things when you have uncoordinated, isolated experts who are weak in communication and collaboration. You need politicians to bridge the gap.
Individual experts can build small things by themselves, but putting together big things takes a very large, diverse group of experts over long periods of time. This is very hard to do!
I like to say that obviously nobody wants bad politicians, just like they don't want bad experts. But they all want good politicians, because when you lack them, infighting and information siloing is the result.
You make a good point - experts are often poor communicators and have their own narrow and selfish motives. They can work at cross purposes and prevent forward movement. A successful manager is the one who can get all the horses to pull the cart in the same direction.
You could also argue that good leaders are simply experts in what leadership entails, here described as being "elite". But I can think of a few examples of people who better fit the expert mould, and even lack the social finesse expected of leaders, but still are great leaders and coordinators. Jackie Fisher of the Royal Navy springs to mind.
In the areas I know about, from my career in computing and VC tech investing, technology experts of all kinds including academia and big tech, are nothing but trend-followers. There is decades-long incompetence built into tech, which no amount of failure is able to dislodge. Most innovation is created by small, desperate groups who do things that actually work -- then when they succeed, the usual incompetence takes over, ignoring the methods that enabled the innovation to be created in the first place. I have written about this extensively, but the brain-dead status quo continues to rule. Here is my work, with extensive examples.
www.blackliszt.com
BTW, we sat together at a table at the Douglas Murray event at MI recently.
Fauci was probably an expert long ago, before he became an elite.
fauci was a complete expert....he failed in his transition to elite status. einstein managed it, schweitzer managed it, edison made it, but it mostly doesn't happen....
Huh. My impression was (is) that Fauci was far more elite than expert. He stage managed everything adeptly under two different administrations and came out on the cover of Time magazine, yet so many of his pronouncements were wrong, or self aggrandizing, or both. I suppose it's true that he at first was dubious about masking and lockdowns ... you could argue he changed his mind as an expert responding to the mood of the elites ... but at this point I wonder what his actual expertise was (besides self promotion).
Oppenheimer may have juggled both well.
I disagree. It was likely just as ann & stanley said.
If one is neither in denial nor working for the elite, one can now find plenty of evidence of his activity managing his elite status, expertise be damned.
He failed not because of a failure to transition, but because the world has changed.
This is absolutely why I have remained technical rather than moving into management as I have gotten older. Yes to expertise, no to elitism.
Overall this was very enlightening. I think, however, that early in COVID the approach was correct and the elite appropriately listened to expert consensus in the face of crisis. Later on the experts could have benefitted from a more “elite” approach and could have used more of their broader understanding.
Also, another major problem in the 21st century is that the elites get to cherry pick and promote experts who agree with them. This has been an issue since antiquity, but it now threatens to remove any trace of expert independence.
Too many PhD's?!
This phenomenon has been hiding in plain sight from me. I was discussing Gregg Popovitch in another forum, he was the coach of the San Antonio Spurs NBA team who quit due to stroke. He was obviously an expert in his domain, pro basketball, but joined the elites in advocating masking and covid vaccines, subjects he knew nothing about and made no attempt to understand. Now it is becoming likely that the vaccines increase the risk of strokes and he may have been a victim of his own advice.
I also thought of Fauci, as did another commenter here. He did in fact offer expert opinion as late as February 2020 when he wrote in JAMA that the CFR for covid may be similar to the flu. John Ioannides supported that in mid March with data from the Diamond princess. Fauci had also previously said masks didn’t work.
But by the end of March he was all in with the ‘elites’. The fact that he lied so easily is strong evidence he’s a sociopath, but that didn’t matter as long as he was a competent expert.
The next question is why our ‘elites’ are so often fools, but that is a subject for another day.
I am skeptical about elites and experts who opine outside their domain. I especially disdain professional athletes who offer their opinion on socio-political matters. Except Michael Jordan as a businessman when he said that "conservatives buy sneakers too".
By my professional background, education and avocation I might have been a member of the elite, but for being raised in a blue-collar working-class community. My father was a master electrician in a shoe factory. I worked for a year and half with him and his friends. The audience for the Rob Henderson Newsletter would likely be offended by the terms of art that these folks spoke of their so-called betters. (Rob may know!) I express my disdain far more gracefully. As a member in good standing of the bullshit class, I, however, can tell a bullshitter a mile away. I have developed skills along the way.
How does this square with Turchin's theory of elite overproduction? Not saying it doesn't...just would be worth a deep dive.
This is great. I was going to ask you to elaborate more on this when I read your letter in FP.
Does much of this mean elites have leadership skill and become leaders while experts tend to be employed by leaders and don’t necessarily cultivate leadership or become leaders?
Your listed traits of elites are reminiscent of books on leadership traits necessary to be a leader.
Moving from expert to elite also tends to raise income a lot…most experts can’t persuade ‘money’ to listen to them and take action.
The issue I have with this interpretation is imagining expert and elite as separate creatures. In truth, they often wear each other’s faces—sometimes in the same moment, always over time. No clear line divides them.
This was a very depressing - although accurate - read. I'd be interested in your take on how elites can banish experts to "the masses" status, what conditions cause that and if there is any way to stop that.
This is an amusing article, and helpful. I recall back in the times of COVID my daughter was out and about with a pack of friends, in out of our house and their houses with no restrictions, like an old fashioned summer before kids all went to day camps. Because their parents were all doctors and knew the kids not getting together posed more risks than the kids getting together. She wasn't allowed to play with the friends whose parents _weren't_ doctors, because they believed the... well, I guess now you've clarified it: the elites, not the experts.
I used to be an expert at work. I enjoyed it. I would probably not have liked becoming an elite, so it's a good thing I didn't.