3 ms·

Is there a name for the phenomenon where someone that is amazing at something (e.g. investing and helping to grow startups) then somehow is given more credibili

Is there a name for the phenomenon where someone that is amazing at something (e.g. investing and helping to grow startups) then somehow is given more credibility to talk about everything else? The exact opposite is true with under represented folks — their “take” needs to be 10x better than than the rich guy with a popular blog to be listened to. He should write a post on influence inequality.

Nasrudith 7y ago
The Halo Effect I believe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect
closeparen 7y ago
The article is pointing out the existence and dynamics of wealth creation, which is exactly what PG is amazing at. Many of his articles do suffer from that problem, but not this one.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  I don't really have a position either way on whether what PG says is true, but it's wrong to say that PG is amazing at "existence and dynamics of wealth creation". He's amazing at "wealth creation", that does not make him an expert on the effects of that wealth creation on society, or the work done in society as a prerequisite for that wealth creation. If I am a programmer, it does not make me an expert on the dynamics of the open source software community, nor does it even make me an expert on the theoretical underpinnings of the type system I'm using. We don't need PG to point out the existence of wealth creation, nor do we need him to tell us about the dynamics of it, when we have multiple sciences with their own experts (economics, economic sociology, world political economy). It's also a dubious assumption to say that economic inequality only relates to wealth creation. Even if that was the only relation, writing about economic inequality and the actual fact of wealth creation are still not identical, they are only related. PG is more qualified than most to talk about this, but he's certainly not the most qualified, and the study of the matters of inequality are tangential to his work at best.
  - closeparen 7y ago
    >We don't need PG to point out the existence of wealth creation But we do, because so much of the popular discourse around inequality assumes a zero-sum economy. I will be happy to disqualify PG's opinion here if you will also disqualify all the economically illiterate populist takes on the other side.

Nasrudith 7y ago

The Halo Effect I believe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

closeparen 7y ago

The article is pointing out the existence and dynamics of wealth creation, which is exactly what PG is amazing at. Many of his articles do suffer from that problem, but not this one.

claudiawerner 7y ago
I don't really have a position either way on whether what PG says is true, but it's wrong to say that PG is amazing at "existence and dynamics of wealth creation". He's amazing at "wealth creation", that does not make him an expert on the effects of that wealth creation on society, or the work done in society as a prerequisite for that wealth creation. If I am a programmer, it does not make me an expert on the dynamics of the open source software community, nor does it even make me an expert on the theoretical underpinnings of the type system I'm using. We don't need PG to point out the existence of wealth creation, nor do we need him to tell us about the dynamics of it, when we have multiple sciences with their own experts (economics, economic sociology, world political economy). It's also a dubious assumption to say that economic inequality only relates to wealth creation. Even if that was the only relation, writing about economic inequality and the actual fact of wealth creation are still not identical, they are only related. PG is more qualified than most to talk about this, but he's certainly not the most qualified, and the study of the matters of inequality are tangential to his work at best.
- closeparen 7y ago
  >We don't need PG to point out the existence of wealth creation But we do, because so much of the popular discourse around inequality assumes a zero-sum economy. I will be happy to disqualify PG's opinion here if you will also disqualify all the economically illiterate populist takes on the other side.