Persuasion and the Prestige Paradox (2021)

> "In short, people have a mechanism in their minds. It stops them from saying something that could lower their status, even if it’s true. And it propels them to say something that could increase their status, even if it’s false. Sometimes, local norms can push against this tendency. Certain communities (e.g., scientists) can obtain status among their peers for expressing truths. But if the norm is relaxed, people might default to seeking status over truth if status confers the greater reward."

Consider the role of 'cultural fit' in hiring in the software development world as an example of this phenomenon. If we take two people with equivalent technical skills in competition for a job, almost certainly the one with the better 'cultural fit' will be hired. 'Cultural fit' is an eyebrow-raising phrase for those with some knowledge of this phenomenon because the specifics, the desired cultural qualities, are almost never explicitly spelled out. Doing covert surveillance on a prospective employer to determine what their expected cultural norms are is not a bad idea if one really needs a job and is willing to swing like a weathervane.

It's also fun to imagine what political views would cause the most pushback at any given time. Right now, anyone saying that the USA should treat the Russia-Ukraine conflict with the same indifference that the USA treats the Saudi-Yemen conflict, i.e. continuing to do business with both Russia and Saudi Arabia without restriction, is going to be turned on with howls of outrage across the board. Regardless, Putin's behavior is rather similar to that of Saudi prince MBS, they seem quite friendly as well:

https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-mohammed-bin-salman-hi...

If you then point out that Saudi Arabia deposits its oil money in Wall Street banks, while Russia certainly does not, and note that this explains the differential treatment, well, prepare to be excommunicated.

> We are lazy creatures who try to expend as little mental energy as possible.

> And people are typically less motivated to scrutinize a message if the source is considered to be an expert. We interpret the message through the peripheral route.

What are the alternatives though? Dig ever deeper into every piece of information until you get stuck on what fundamental particle/laws is the universe made of? Trust your taxi driver on what is wrong with your health rather than your doctor? Trust neither and spend 20 years in school to understand why your stomach hurts today?

All articles about biases, mental shortcuts, preconceived ideas and so on miss on offering a real alternative. And guess why, because there is none. It's the best we have, as imperfect as these mechanisms are.

Belief is not “inherently religious”, religion is one of many kinds of beliefs. Science is centered on a particular epistemology—a belief about what makes a belief justified—rather than opposed to belief.

The problem is that anyone saying that will become persona non grata... maybe the really smart cattle just extract themselves from the stampede, thinking, "too bad for you fools, it's a Darwin moment, guess that means more grass for me."

Unfortunately that strategy doesn't really work when humans are stampeding for nuclear war and climatic destruction, there won't be any grass left for anyone.