I enjoyed the transcript of Tyler Cowen’s talk with Glen Weyl more than I expected. One part:
COWEN: Look at Robin Hanson. Robin, to me, is rebelling against hypocrisy. I think he even might agree with that. What are you rebelling against?
WEYL: I think I’m most deeply rebelling against the separation between the role of the expert and the role of the politically engaged person. I grew up wanting to be a politician for long periods, and also wanting to be a physicist for long periods, and I’m deeply frustrated by the ways in which these things are these separate and contradictory roles in our society. I’m struggling to straddle the divide.
COWEN: Well, that’s a good answer. But if you had to boil it down to something more foundational, what institutional failure or what personal quality lies behind that? What would that be? Why do we screw that thing up?
WEYL: Singular identity is one way of putting it. Many people who are economists think they’re an economist. Many people who think that they’re libertarian think they’re libertarian. Every identity that I’ve been part of, that I thought I believed in, ended up having so much corruption entwined in it, and ultimately, it’s the plurality and intersection of those things where I find meaning.
I would say that in the realm of public intellectuals, I rebel against engineers and admire epistemologists. I distrust people who come up with clever engineering solutions to problems, such as test, track, and trace for the virus crisis. For me, an epistemologist is someone who constantly wrestles with the issue of what is true.
A non-epistemologist relies on a simple heuristic, like trusting what they read in their favorite media outlet, or looking for a “consensus of the experts.” An epistemologist asks how such a consensus was tested and why it has been preserved. If the sociology of the domain is such that the high-status people have the incentive and means to bully everyone else into submission, then the “consensus of the experts” is not all that reliable.
I think epistimologist is an insufficient skillset in a crisis. If you’re continuously wondering what is true, you tend to waste too much time.
“Strategist” is a better goal. Strategists make decisions based on limited information. Seeking information is a valid choice, but not always the best choice because it costs time and resources. Rather than attempt to discern the entire truth, a strategist considers different scenarios that are consistent with the available information (and considers whether some information could be wrong). Based on that, plans are made to achieve goals in an uncertain environment while continually monitoring the situation.
For example, a strategist would generally favor masks, even cloth ones. The effectiveness is uncertain, but it’s a cheap and easy action with a reasonable probability of positively affecting the outcome and very little associated risk. You could do research to find out how effective, exactly, various types of masks are, but that’s a low-priority action. It would take considerable time and resources and probably wouldn’t change the basic “wear a mask” recommendation.
“If the sociology of the domain is such that the high-status people have the incentive and means to bully everyone else into submission, then the ‘consensus of the experts’ is not all that reliable.”
+1
At first, in my speed reading, I read “epidemiologist” for “epistemologist.” Lol…my brain cannot help it.
But – but..how will the epistemologist maintain status if he doesn’t signal conformity to bien pensant opinion, but instead keeps raising questions? 🙂
“I distrust people who come up with clever engineering solutions to problems”
As long as I don’t have to fly on planes or drive in cars designed by epistemologists.
I like Nassim Taleb’s distinction between things that are “complicated” and things that are “complex.” Planes and cars are complicated, but nature and economics are complex.
With complex systems, there is causal opacity. They are unpredictable. Planes and cars are pretty predictable.
It’s a mistake to allow “experts” to treat complex systems as if they can be engineered top-down like a complicated system, but they do it all the time.
+1
+1
+1
Just happen to be reading Skin in the Game and the first thought that popped into my head reading Dr Kling’ s post was I think Taleb would agree.
That’s a great distinction but keep in mind those aren’t _exclusive_. I’m certainly thinking of the Boeing 737 Max problem. That’s a complicated system that also has a lot of complexity, and therefore opacity.
Next question, for people who know more than I do about this – are there AI systems that _aren’t_ “complex” (by the definition above)? It seems like the complexity is baked in to the process, and there’s always a fair amount of causal opacity.
It seems like epistemologists would be more likely to make Type 2 errors and engineers to make Type 1 errors.
My brain so immediately screams “CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION” at everything I see that I sometimes have to remind myself that sometimes there actually is causation.
A somewhat related point is that I’m basically Hayekian, but I often notice what I see as a flaw in the reasoning of people w/ my worldview:
So for instance I’m a high school math teacher. It’s not obvious how to run classes online during the quarantine.
The federal government says, “Leave it up to the states! They have local knowledge.” That sounds good to me.
Then the states say, “Leave it up to the districts! They have local knowledge.” That sounds good to me too.
Then the district says, “Leave it up to the teachers! They have local knowledge.” That may well be true for many teachers but not all. Many will simply not know what to do and their classes will be bad. Inconsistency across teachers can be problematic as well. At some link in the chain someone needs to step in and and implement top-down control.
It’s not obvious what link in the chain should institute that control, but a mistake that I personally make is promoting a Hayekian view without acknowledging that somewhere along the line somebody has to go top-down instead of bottom-up. Which link in the chain probably depends on the problem, but it can be glib to reflexively advocate bottom-up processes.
As you correctly point out, some teachers are thriving in the new delivery. Thanks to blogs like: https://www.joannejacobs.com/ discovery of alternative approaches and methods has never been cheaper. Closing the schools has been an enormous opportunity to engage in trial and error. The top downers will eventually reassert control and standardize to some sub optimal administratively convenient routine but the peasants have caught a glimpse of a better way and will find means to subvert and opt out of controlled education. Prediction: hybrid schools (as described at Jacobs’ blog) will blossom and grow increasingly popular even after the empire strikes back.
As an engineer I’m mildly insulted by your disparagement of engineering. I think it is likely that nobody who is advancing “ test, track, and trace” actually has an engineering degree.
Maybe just read “engineering” as “social engineering “ or “state capacity libertarianism “ for that matter.
“ If the sociology of the domain is such that the high-status people have the incentive and means to bully everyone else into submission, then the “consensus of the experts” is not all that reliable.”
No where is this more evident than in the USA. Notice that all the useful relevant research and progress in addressing the virus has come from other countries. Other demanding that everyone be forced to stand in lines to form giant circles for hourly virus testing, the USA has contributed nothing.
I think I’m most deeply rebelling against the separation between the role of the expert and the role of the politically engaged person.
What a rebel, what a fresh thinker …
I was hoping to hear more of your thoughts on the “corruption” aspect of Weyl’s thoughts. I’m sure you’ve witnessed your fair share of corruption at Fannie/Freddie and in academia, but what about within libertarianism?