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.

Comments

[Stephen the Goldberger]

any idiot could have told you that, thanks for over-intellectualizing it.

[Syloson of Samos]

I think generally the case there is an institutional bias against controversy or new ideas. It is probably hard to imagine now but Einstein's notions regarding wave-particle duality were still being challenged by quite reputable physicists well into the 1930s. Anyway, such bias obviously has its good and bad points.

[Syloson of Samos]

In other words, humans and the institutions they create are generally a pretty "conservative" lot, despite all the poetry and prose about our species sense of adventure.

[Eryk Boston]

The short version: converts make the best allies.

[Guy Montag]

Odd, Ralph Nader had a very similar speech about this, broadcast on C-SPAN back in the last century and well over a decade ago.

Not sure how close the words match, but this has a familiar feel beyond just the notion of breaking free of the "standard" notions in a field. Nader also had an element of admitting one was wrong, but not too early, in gaining credibility in the USA pres, or something similar.

[J sub D]

On the other hand, Billy Mitchell ended up in command of ... (cue Emily Litella) NEVER MIND.

[joe]

This must be why the cable nooz would still rather have Peter Beinart talk about the Iraq War than Roberty Kuttner.

[joe]

Gotta give props for a Billy Mitchel reference.

There's a dorm at GWU named after Billy Mitchell.

[Lamar]

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
...
I took the one less traveled by,
and it totally f*cked my career.

[J sub D]

There's a dorm at GWU named after Billy Mitchell.

Cool.

[P Brooks]

When you come to a fork in the road...

take it.

[Gilbert Martin]

"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...."

It's funny how the scenario presented to illustrate this thesis is based on the presumption of the people involved being in academia, government or some other beaurocratic arena where they are dependent on some "powers that be" for funding/advancement/approval.

This would not apply to other scenarios such as investors who make investment choices contrary to the "standard" view of what industry sectors are hot and are subsequently proven to be correct or entreprenuers who start a new type of business that does well contrary to the "standard" view.

Those people are rewarded by the market in real time. They don't need any approval from the "powers that be" to succeed.

[Drawn Asunder]

Also, after the contrarian takes the other path, the pack explains him away by accusing him of "just not getting it", of "not understanding the weight of the existential threat to our way of life", of "wanting to surrender", and "hating america". And worse, being "immature": this precludes him from participating after the realignment down the road. The pack still rules, and is always right, even when it was wrong.

This is why David Frum will still be advising the (Clinton II) White House. After all, they were wrong, but at least they were wrong for the right reasons.

Or, am I reading too much into it?

[Episiarch]

where they are dependent on some "powers that be" for funding/advancement/approval.

Excellent point. If you suck off someone else's teat, don't complain when you don't get your share even if you think you deserve it.

[Larry Edelstein]

There are times when it can take a lot of political skill to get your new ideas adopted. If they're not, it takes a lot of patience, adaptability, and - again - political skill to stay in the game and be the go-to guy when your ideas finally look useful.

I hate to pick on an innocent computer scientist, but what has Doug Lenat done that's turned out to be so right? Surely Cyc hasn't received enough adoption to warrant a reevaluation of his work.

[joe]

That was a very good point, Gilbert.

I'd be cautious about over-applying it, as Episiarch does.

Public opinion, for example, is not "the powers that be," but it is still an arena in which the players are in the "people business," rather than in the objective-feedback business.

[a]

I guess this explains a lot about why Reason still runs Ron Bailey, Michael Young, and Cathy Young after their stupid -- but highly conventional! -- commentaries on Iraq for the last 5 years.

[thoreau]

It's entirely possible that the people who were right about something early on were just lucky.

The best thing to do is ask why the person made that prediction. If the reason for the prediction is grounded in other factors that have held true, perhaps there's something to it. If, OTOH, the underlying arguments have no connection to reality, then the person is a broken clock at the right time of day.

[lunchstealer]

I absolutely guarantee my broken clocks to remain accurate to +/-6 hours even after 75 years of use.

[Drawn Asunder]

The best thing to do is ask why the person made that prediction. If the reason for the prediction is grounded in other factors that have held true, perhaps there's something to it. If, OTOH, the underlying arguments have no connection to reality, then the person is a broken clock at the right time of day.

That's how the pack dismisses libertarianism: it's bullshit that just happens to have been right, but you'd be nuts to actually subscribe to any of the philosophy behind it.

[lunchstealer]

Heck, I'll do one better, and say that after that amount of time, the average error will be 0

[Tommy_Grand]

"This would not apply to other scenarios such as investors who make investment choices contrary to the "standard" view of what industry sectors are hot and are subsequently proven to be correct or entreprenuers who start a new type of business that does well contrary to the "standard" view. Those people are rewarded by the market in real time. They don't need any approval from the "powers that be" to succeed."

If you work in a big invst. company - at the entry level your job is to please the "powers that be" (eg the board, your boss, etc.) Eventually you may rise, if you succeed meet that criterion.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Public opinion, for example, is not "the powers that be," but it is still an arena in which the players are in the "people business," rather than in the objective-feedback business."

Public opinion is, in a way, just another manisfestation of the market. Some people are better at predicting what the public will like and what it won't, but there isn't any central power engineering public opinion from the top down.

Of course that only matters to people in occupations where public opinion has some bearing on what they do - just as the opinions of the "powers that be" only matter in certain types of occupations.

There are some occupations where being right just once means you are set for life and being wrong means you are finished.

Not too long ago, there was a hedge fund called Amaranth that was speculating in natural gas commodity futures contracts. They bet wrong and lost so much money that they got wiped out.

There was another hedge fund called Citadel that took the other side of that trade and they made an enormous amount of money.

The person at Citadel who was responsible for authorizing the fund to accept that trade got paid $1.8 billion as his share of the profit.

As I said, sometimes you only have to be right once - at the right time.

[Gilbert Martin]

"If you work in a big invst. company - at the entry level your job is to please the "powers that be" (eg the board, your boss, etc.) Eventually you may rise, if you succeed meet that criterion."

I was taking about private investors investing their own money. They have to answer to no one but themselves and share the credit and reward with no one else if they are correct in their nvestment decisions.

[Mo]

Gilbert,
Except the common m.o. in investing is that being wrong is ok if everyone else does it, but career limiting if you do it alone. Contrarians don't get the big bucks in investing either. Didn't you read the common hedge fund excuse this summer, "We lost a lot of money because everyone made the same trades we did."

[joshua corning]

One should note that in business the contrarian is instantly rewarded. (that is if she is right)

One would also expect a privately funded contrarian researcher would also be instantly rewarded.

While the standard guy in both business and privately funded researcher would have to scramble to catch up.

[Mike Laursen]

This would not apply to other scenarios such as investors who make investment choices contrary to the "standard" view of what industry sectors are hot and are subsequently proven to be correct or entreprenuers who start a new type of business that does well contrary to the "standard" view.

Nor does it apply if you happen to be one of the "powers that be".

[Gilbert Martin]

"Contrarians don't get the big bucks in investing either"

They do if they are private investors investing their own money and they prove to be correct about what they invested in.

As I said before, that's who I was talking about.

[stuartl]

Alfred Russell Wallace is an interesting choice. He had the same insight on Natural Selection that Darwin had had years earlier. Darwin kept his theories mostly private as he built up a huge amount of evidence in support of Natural Selection.

Wallace, on the other hand, was ready to rush off and publish without nearly as much backing data. Yes, Wallace prompted Darwin to publish earlier, but it was Darwin's data that won the scientific debate. There is good reason why Darwin is far better remembered (even Wallace referred to the theory as Darwinism). Darwin didn't just have brilliance, he also had discipline.

[stuartl]

Some of the bios listed suggest an inability to bring good ideas to fruition. This may be why modern science and engineering works better in teams. You need both good ideas and follow through.

[Mike Laursen]

No, shit. Ted Nelson's writings on his grand vision are fun to read, but no "powers that be" have ever held him back. He simply doesn't have the kind of personality that has the discipline and practical sense to crank out a working piece of software. At this point, the World Wide Web has supplanted his ideas; he's missed the boat.

[Mark Bahner]

It's entirely possible that the people who were right about something early on were just lucky.

The best thing to do is ask why the person made that prediction. If the reason for the prediction is grounded in other factors that have held true, perhaps there's something to it. If, OTOH, the underlying arguments have no connection to reality, then the person is a broken clock at the right time of day.

That's why I explain in my Long Bets prediction #194 why Nobel prize-winning economist Robert E. Lucas Jr. and pretty much the entire economics profession are wrong about economic growth in the 21st century, and I am right.

http://www.longbets.org/194

Note that the voting is currently about 4-to-1 against me. In a decade or two, it will be even. And by 2030, new votes will be 4-to-1 in my favor.

You heard it here, first. 😉