
The Science Of Snobbery - bernatfp
http://priceonomics.com/the-science-of-snobbery/
======
bambax
Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" doesn't get the mention it
deserves; it's alluded to, together with an interview of the author, and then
back to "Blink".

But if you're interested in these subjects, Kahneman is a much better read
than Gladwell, if only because he did most of the research himself (and got a
Nobel for his efforts).

One takeaway is that so-called "System 1", the intuitive, immediate and
"blinking" operating mode of our brain _is usually super-effective_ , but
takes shortcuts that can can result in flawed conclusions. Those shortcuts are
consistent and can be highlighted by research.

"System 2" is the slow, rational operating mode where we analyze and weight
all available evidence; System 2 is expensive to operate and takes a long time
to produce results, so for most tasks it usually doesn't even start.

One example from the book that struck me is the famous observation that 90% of
people think of themselves as "above average" in driving ability. This is
usually quoted to show that people think highly of themselves.

But when asked a different question, such as, for example, "do you think
you're above average or below average in your ability to initiate a
conversation with a complete stranger", a great majority of people evaluate
themselves as "below average".

The actual explanation has nothing to do with self-esteem; it's just a "System
1 shortcut". Answering the question of how one's ability relates to the
"average" performance is extremely difficult (for a start, it would imply
measuring said average). So what System 1 does, it substitutes a simple
question to the difficult one.

System 1 doesn't even attempt to answer the initial question; it changes the
question to "am I good or bad at this task". Most people think they are okay
drivers, and most people think they're not good at starting a conversation
with a complete stranger, hence the answers.

The relation to the average that was part of the original question has
disappeared.

The problem is that the substitution is silent and unconscious, and that we
still think we're answering the initial question when in fact we are not.

~~~
VLM
>But when asked a different question, such as, for example, "do you think
you're above average or below average in your ability to initiate a
conversation with a complete stranger", a great majority of people evaluate
themselves as "below average".

>The actual explanation has nothing to do with self-esteem

This is a bad selection of questions for a conclusion that may none the less
be true, because a stranger is the one bugging them for an answer. The short,
polite, version of my response is "below average". The longer version would be
something like "that is the worst pickup line I've ever heard and I'm married
anyway, now go away I don't talk to strangers with weird pickup lines".
Claiming to have a talent and refusing to express it by continuing the
conversation would be considered pretty rude, its more polite just to blow off
the questioner and claim not to be an expert.

I do this with home computer stuff all the time. Sorry, I don't have a
computer like yours I mostly work on bigger business related stuff so I don't
know which key is the "any key". Oh you have yet another virus, I'd love to
spend the next eight hours trying to remove it and giving up and reinstalling
everything, but I unfortunately don't know how, so just buy a mac next time,
mkay? What computer should I buy, well I don't know anything about that other
than you should get a mac; why yes, I don't have any personal mac experience
at all; so that won't be any problem (for me).

------
frossie
Note this:

"Tsay took the actual audition recordings of the top 3 finalists"

It seems entirely possible to me that the top 3 finalists in a prestigious
musical competition are so close in skill (or so complementary in strengths
and weaknesses) that the judging is dominated by extraneous factors.

This is quite unlike the wine example, where people who allegedly can tell the
geographic provenance of a wine fail to do so.

~~~
lmg643
As a longtime musician myself, I can certainly tell when someone is making
mistakes. in one example, i've listened to so many versions of beethoven opus
111 that i've noticed a world-famous pianist who played the bass line in a
single measure differently than what was written (sounded better his way,
IMHO).

but what makes one "best" is highly subjective. i'm not sure what the research
proves other than perhaps it's harder to move on from adolescent
disappointments than is commonly acknowledged.

A more relevant question for the snob factor is "how do critics recognize when
NEW music is great, average or crap." because that's pretty much what wine is
- a constant cycle of new product, varying from year to year, even when it
came from the same vines.

the valid "snob" angle here for both wine and music is that we aren't supposed
to judge based on pure sensory experience. For example, a very sweet wine is
going to be palatable to a lot of folks, but we're supposed to recognize the
subtleties of a dry pinot noir instead. or compare most anything by john cage
to anything by beethoven. or compare beethoven to justin timberlake.

there is a valid case to be made that once you learn to have "cultivated"
tastes, you can pick out all these details and truly appreciate them. i once
participated in a blind wine tasting where only one woman out of 30 people
could reliably pick out the fancy wines from the cheap ones. for her, i expect
the process of drinking wine is a lot different than for the rest of us
yokels. Tasting things we can't notice, and appreciating them differently.
good goal to aspire to, if we care, otherwise just admit we have no clue, be
happy, and move on.

~~~
WalterBright
I played trumpet for years as a kid. I was terrible at it, and eventually gave
it up.

But I did get something interesting out of it - I know how hard it is to play
a trumpet well, and when someone does play it well, I enjoy listening to it
very much.

When I point out fine trumpet playing to others who have no experience with
the trumpet, they just shrug their shoulders.

But I still derive obvious pleasure from hearing it, clearly more so than
others. I think it is real pleasure, not just snobbery.

~~~
WalterBright
As a corollary, I can't distinguish good piano playing from great. The nuance
is lost on me.

Interestingly, I can also recognize the 'lip' of particular trumpet players.
Each one has his unique sound, despite playing identical instruments. Herb
Alpert has his casual elegance, Al Hirt's in-your-face aggressive style, and
Maurice Andre his amazing tone.

------
markatto
"Chia-Jung Tsay’s analysis of classical musician auditions explicitly drew on
this idea by providing participants with only 6 second clips of each
performance."

Speaking as someone who studied violin in college, this is absurd - you can't
judge an entire audition based on a 6-second clip. Was any effort made to
ensure that the clip was representative of the entire performance?

Also, a video can give you an idea of the musician's technique, which for many
instruments is probably worth a lot more than an arbitrary 6 seconds of audio.

~~~
quanticle
>you can't judge an entire audition based on a 6-second clip

The entire point of the study is that, counterintuitively, _you can_. The
participants who watched the 6 second video clips without audio did better
than random chance in predicting who _actually_ won the audition. They weren't
judging the musicians. The musicians had already been judged by professionals.
What the study showed was that flash, unconscious judgement plays a
significant role in the judgements of both laypeople and trained judges.

------
lionhearted
I just realized I that I look forward to Priceonomics articles and respect
their writing tremendously, but I don't actually know what they do. I thought
it was a blog about weird economics-like social signaling effects, and was
only vaguely aware that their was some company underneath it.

------
ars
> The mind operates most efficiently by relegating a good deal of high-level,
> sophisticated thinking to the unconscious

And this is why "distracted" driving is not a real problem. You obviously have
to look at the road (so texting is out), but it's not necessary to actively
pay attention to the road - your unconscious is actually a better driver than
your conscious. (Once you've been driving long enough to "program" your
unconscious.)

> Our internal computers are powerful but unknowable.

No. They are totally knowable. You just have to pay attention to how you
program them. And programming your unconscious is probably the #1 task of your
conscious.

If you pay attention you can actually notice when your unconscious is acting
for you, and you can then guide it based on what you would like it to do. Have
you ever spoken to someone while doing something else, and then later have no
memory of what you actually said? That's an example of your unconscious acting
for you.

A mind is not a single entity, but rather a whole bunch of them, with a master
at the top giving high level instruction, and then letting the lower "minds"
act on their own for the details.

A gamer knows this quite well - if you play a game that demands very fast
reflexes, if you actually think about your game you'll do very badly. Instead
you program a part of your mind to handle the job for you (by practicing and
learning patterns), and it's way faster than your conscious because it's much
more specialized (like the difference between a GPU and a CPU).

------
npguy
Have to love these conclusions, particularly of the blink variety. They sound
so scientific you almost believe that there is some science behind them. Like
this one.

[http://fakevalley.com/breakthrough-coffee-and-sugar-are-
boug...](http://fakevalley.com/breakthrough-coffee-and-sugar-are-bought-
together/)

------
ballard
Consumer wine tasting in a lab (UC Davis), glasses are handed one after
another based purely on number.... from jetfuel to good stuff.

(VEN 3 [0] prof rarely ever bought anything over $14.)

[0]
[http://catalog.ucdavis.edu/programs/VEN/VENcourses.html](http://catalog.ucdavis.edu/programs/VEN/VENcourses.html)

------
alphaBetaGamma
As a counterpoint, I can distinguish a very bad chess player from a good one
without seeing a single game he/she has played. Just looking at his/her
behavior and countenance in front of the board is enough.

As an extreme example, you probably have seen a (very bad) player put his
finger on the piece he wants to move, than keep it there and look around on
the board, verifying that he will not immediately lose his piece when he
complete his intended move. A better player will have made a final decision on
his play before his arm starts to move.

A much more subtle example: better players place their pieces more accurately
in the center of their square, particularly in blitz games.

Now I don't claim to distinguish a 2400 elo player from a 2500 elo. But a 1500
from a 1800 elo? Sure.

------
alextingle
That's a great long essay that says nothing at all.

~~~
jpeg_hero
Priceonomics is a total commitment to the idea of "blogging based traction"

if you blog enough, can you rank enough, to get traction on your product?

what is organic traffic? is it seo? what is the ideal "organic result" for the
Logitech G27 ([http://priceonomics.com/gaming-
accessories/logitech/g27/](http://priceonomics.com/gaming-
accessories/logitech/g27/))?

maybe if you blog enough you can rank in goog??

~~~
jmgrosen
Fine by me if that's their strategy. I love these blog posts.

------
gjmulhol
Joshua Bell, one of the greatest violinists of our time, as a busker has only
2 people take any notice, and only one person realize how great he is -- and
that is because she recognized him, not his playing.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOPu0_YWhw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOPu0_YWhw)

------
mrcactu5
experts are a really strange feature in our society. at one point they may
have been at the top of their game. they grow older the game chances, they
retain their titles. we do it out of respect -- how do we tell these guys they
are wrong?

------
Tycho
I'm convinced that a lot of people just don't like _music_ that much, but if
they _were_ to go to a concert then classical offers the benefit of appearing
more prestigious/sophisticated.

------
BasDirks
Classical music can move me to tears. Can be piano music on my iPod or a live
performance. No snobbery involved.

Snobbery is when people don't get it and try really hard to do so.

------
AsymetricCom
Reminds me a lot of the book, _Blink_ , that addresses these types of
intuitions and their basis on reality.

What's more interesting, is when exactly does stereotyping cause the snobbish
culture to collapse into a celebratory circle jerk of Italian suits and only
the finest crystal for our 12 year old rotted grape juice?

Is there anything left of the supposed domain experts that used to live in
these critical societies or has the lack of recorded expert opinions caused
the protected tribal knowledge to evaporate?

~~~
mrcactu5
Isn't Blink the opposite, where experts are supposed to have the uncanny
ability to detect fraud?

~~~
AsymetricCom
Yes, quite. What the author of this article is really writing about is
fraudsters ability to detect stereotypes of experts, or becoming meta-experts.

