Being Right Too Early Is Not a Good Career Move

George Mason University economist Robin Hanson has an interesting post over at his always valuable Overccoming Bias web forum on how being a contrarian who proves to be right is often the wrong career move. To wit:

Imagine two people at a fork in the road of ideas, choosing between a standard and a contrarian view on some subject. One takes a standard view, and gains a bit more favor with the "powers that be." This helps him gain the right sort of contacts and opportunities to move up in the world. Eventually he has somewhat more prestigious publications, affiliations, contacts, experience, and so on.

At the fork in the road, the other person embraces a contrarian view. This makes him a bit more suspect, and all else equal this costs him somewhat in terms of getting good contacts and opportunities…

As this once-contrarian view starts to become acceptable to "powers that be", the cautious person, who took the standard fork in the road, may consider jumping into this newly acceptable area. He may start to write papers and apply for resources, such as jobs, funding, publications, and students. And some ambitious "powers that be" who give out resources may also decide to try get into this new area, in part to gain the prestige that comes from being the first to support a new trend.

At this point such ambitious "powers that be" may have to choose between these two people, who once chose differing forks in the road. The contrarian will have established some priority with these once-contrarian ideas, such as being the first to publish on or actively pursue related ideas. And he will be somewhat more familiar with those ideas, having spent years on them.

But the cautious person will be more familiar with standard topics and methods, and so be in a better position to communicate this new area to a standard audience, and to integrate it in with other standard areas. More important to the "powers that be" hoping to establish this new area, this standard person will bring more prestige and resources to this new area.

If the standard guy wins the first few such contests, his advantage can quickly snowball into an overwhelming one. People will prefer to cite his publications as they will be in more prestigious journals, even if they were not quite as creative. Reporters will prefer to quote him, students will prefer to study under him, firms will prefer to hire him as a consultant, and journals will prefer to publish him, as he will be affiliated with more prestigious institutions. And of course the contrarian may have a worse reputation as a "team player."

This is not just a plausible story—I have personally known people where similar stories have played out, and have read about others. It has happened to varying degrees with Ted Nelson, Eric Drexler, Douglas Engelbart, Doug Lenat, David Deutsch, Alfred Russel Wallace, Hugh Everett, and, yes, me.

But Hanson suggests that there is a consolation of sorts. Besides the inherent pleasure of being right all along, the contrarian may not get the credit, but Hanson believes he does exercise greater intellectual influence eventually.

Whole Hanson item here.