Crony Beliefs

[Cesare]

I saw this on HN the other day, and it's got me thinking about stuff that I thought I knew.

https://meltingasphalt.com/crony-beliefs/


I've a feeling that many for me, befuddling things that happen in the world can probably be explained by me mistakenly placing beliefs in the 'merit' category when they are really 'crony'.

I think we've probably all had some previous model for crony beliefs, areas where we know that people differ, and that facts aren't going to make a difference. We've all got a mate who thinks Wolverhampton Wanders is the best football team in the world (substitute in whatever team and sport is appropriate) and it's clearly not an expression of fact, it's an expression of passion, and association with their chosen clan. Similarly someone's religious beliefs (or lack of beliefs) aren't open for such discussion, and I think we all get this.

Now i'd say that lots of contentious issues in politics are crony, even if they are argued with 'facts' - the Brexits and Trumps of this world for example. Add the usual Virtue Signalling beliefs to this list, as he points out, climate change etc.

I think it's interesting to think of altruism as a crony belief, as it basically says that people help others in order to get some sort of kickback from society (oh t. I'm pretty sure that's how I see ostentatious displays of wealth like paying for a new wing on the local hospital and getting it named after your family. Does this carry all the way down to helping an old lady across the road, or giving a few quid to a beggar on the street?

I'm currently thinking of the usual audio battle lines as crony beliefs (cables have directions, class A amps are best, vinyl sounds best etc etc) but am a loss as to how they benefit the believer. I guess there might be something of the football fan about it, entry to the clan by spending serious amounts of money for your belief might be the audio equivalent of getting your team name tattooed on your arm?

Anyhow, have a read, see what you make of it.

 

[paulfromcamden]

I thought the idea that people sometimes adopt contrarian beliefs to stick out was interesting - the irony being that it can often become a bit like the scene in Life Of Brian where the crowd replies as one 'Yes! We're All Individual!" - see current QAnon balls.

 

[monkfish]

I thought the idea that people sometimes adopt contrarian beliefs to stick out was interesting - the irony being that it can often become a bit like the scene in Life Of Brian where the crowd replies as one 'Yes! We're All Individual!" - see current QAnon balls.

Apart from the one who said "I'm not"

 

[narabdela]

I got about a third of the way through that, but then lost the thread and the point. I accept that my own mindset does contain prejudices and inconsistencies; no problem there; but I still reserve the right to regard conspiracy theorists as batshit crazy. Does that make me a bad person?

 

[John Phillips]

I saw this on HN the other day, and it's got me thinking about stuff that I thought I knew.

https://meltingasphalt.com/crony-beliefs/

I've a feeling that many for me, befuddling things that happen in the world can probably be explained by me mistakenly placing beliefs in the 'merit' category when they are really 'crony'.
...
Anyhow, have a read, see what you make of it.

It's quite consistent with my experience of working in international standards committees.

Most of my work in this context was to achieve publication of a particular standard by submitting practical contributions. But there were always a few participants who seemed to be there mostly to be there - to be insiders.

When I turned up I always had to work out and anticipate who would argue with my contributions and on what basis. Many made arguments, based clearly on relevant technical beliefs, which were intended to be constructive steps towards the goal; worth listening to; and worth taking into account (however difficult). But there were always arguments from just a few attendees whose underlying beliefs were much more opaque, much more difficult to divine and very difficult to deal with constructively.

I would argue (well, I would) that my contributions were based on meritocracy, rewarded by an intended outcome. And so were the many who engaged on the same basis (even if they had difficult points to deal with). But it would seem that I can label some of the other arguments as cronyism rewarded by achieving something else such as reputation and justifying the expenditure of time and travel budget.