The Science Of Snobbery(priceonomics.com)
priceonomics.com
The Science Of Snobbery
http://priceonomics.com/the-science-of-snobbery/
17 comments
>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).
>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).
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As a side note, the explosion in terroirs from the new world has really (seems to have) made the notion of wine snobbery somewhat archaic. In the 19/20th century perhaps it was a mark of distinction, to put some investment in this. The math is far more dauting to have an encyclopaedic understanding of the field than it was in, say 1930. The growth of new areas, new techniques, and the everchaning weather has made this a fools errand, and a false class marker at best.
Dispense with the class markers and terroirs.
I wonder how many self-professed wine snobs can even tell reds from whites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rmm-xqRHGw
I wonder how many self-professed wine snobs can even tell reds from whites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rmm-xqRHGw
And dispense with the ridiculous prices. My takeaway regarding wine would be (If I drank any) that anything more than $10-$15 per bottle is probably snobbery- or collectors markup.
and this is just another kind of snobbery - a snobbery toward "perceived snobbery"
> This is quite unlike the wine example, where people who allegedly can tell the geographic provenance of a wine fail to do so.
Being French and not being a big wine person (I do have other vices though :) ), those results (see the linked Priceonomics article, or [1]) amuse me quite a bit.
Especially when I brought them up to my dad, a typical French wine snob who frequently goes to wine expos, wine tastings (the kind where you spit it out, not the kind where you get wasted with your friends on a bus in Napa). He entirely rejected the validity of those experiments, claiming that they were probably rigged or done sloppily. This reminds me that I should do my own blind test with him next time I go home. The human brain is a funny, funny thing.
[1]: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06...
Being French and not being a big wine person (I do have other vices though :) ), those results (see the linked Priceonomics article, or [1]) amuse me quite a bit.
Especially when I brought them up to my dad, a typical French wine snob who frequently goes to wine expos, wine tastings (the kind where you spit it out, not the kind where you get wasted with your friends on a bus in Napa). He entirely rejected the validity of those experiments, claiming that they were probably rigged or done sloppily. This reminds me that I should do my own blind test with him next time I go home. The human brain is a funny, funny thing.
[1]: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06...
I think there is a tendency to overestimate the conclusions of the cited study. We definitely should be wary of price tags -- I've had $10 and $15 bottles of wine that kicked the pants off many $50-100 bottles. I'm also definitely skeptical of people who believe they can divine the vineyard a bottle came from by taste alone.
There definitely are, however, differences among wines. Whether or not the price reflects these differences, it's not wrong to have preferences.
Two years ago I went to a coffee tasting. At one point, the brewer handed everyone two marked cups of distinct coffees. He described the two by flavor profile, but didn't say which cup was which. After everyone had a taste, he quizzed us by straw poll. Almost everyone correctly identified which cup matched which profile (they were very distinct beans), but people's preferences fell 50/50. Afterwards, he revealed that the price/lb difference between the two cups was about $90.
There are also good reasons for these price differences. Ethiopian coffee beans are highly regarded, but are also often priced highly because the supply and export of these beans, due to political reasons, is volatile.
I don't think you were implying all wine is the same :) I just wanted to make the point that nobody should begrudge themselves a good cup of coffee, wine, beer, etc. Never trust the price tag, be skeptical of consumer ratings, but do trust your taste buds and drink what makes you happy!
There definitely are, however, differences among wines. Whether or not the price reflects these differences, it's not wrong to have preferences.
Two years ago I went to a coffee tasting. At one point, the brewer handed everyone two marked cups of distinct coffees. He described the two by flavor profile, but didn't say which cup was which. After everyone had a taste, he quizzed us by straw poll. Almost everyone correctly identified which cup matched which profile (they were very distinct beans), but people's preferences fell 50/50. Afterwards, he revealed that the price/lb difference between the two cups was about $90.
There are also good reasons for these price differences. Ethiopian coffee beans are highly regarded, but are also often priced highly because the supply and export of these beans, due to political reasons, is volatile.
I don't think you were implying all wine is the same :) I just wanted to make the point that nobody should begrudge themselves a good cup of coffee, wine, beer, etc. Never trust the price tag, be skeptical of consumer ratings, but do trust your taste buds and drink what makes you happy!
One could argue similar on wine. Only a very small subset of people can actually detect the provenance. Most of us can't. There is a big gap between trained Sommelier and so-called expert. They may sound the same, which makes it confusing.
A slight digression in the topic of music, I recall reading (in Freakonomics or Gladwell?) a study which showed that people tend to like music purely because they hear it more often. In essence, there isn't an objective standard.
A slight digression in the topic of music, I recall reading (in Freakonomics or Gladwell?) a study which showed that people tend to like music purely because they hear it more often. In essence, there isn't an objective standard.
This is one reason why I think copyright needs reformed. We made the Beatles famous by playing their records all the time, we (the public) should get some recognition for that in terms of shortened terms for popular works.
I think that may have some negative system gaming outcomes, like playing a "sure to be a success" song on repeat from 2am to 6am every morning so that you don't have to pay royalties on it for the next 40 years. With a very large number of stations being owned by a very small number of players this kind of "cooperation" in a market is inevitable.
The primary effect of this game would be a substantial reduction in the diversity of music, because off times which could have introduced new(er) sounds are now channel-stuffed with top40 to eliminate their copyright before the top40 becomes an oldie. Also if only top40 music is free, competitive pressure will annihilate all other forms of music because they would cost money. This also applies to retail sales, why pay $15 for something new when you could pay $10 for something popular. So two forces acting together means you'd end up with zero choices for music.
However I'm not convinced that the elimination of the Music Industry would be bad for Music. Even if it creates a wasteland, what lives in wastelands tends to be interesting.
The primary effect of this game would be a substantial reduction in the diversity of music, because off times which could have introduced new(er) sounds are now channel-stuffed with top40 to eliminate their copyright before the top40 becomes an oldie. Also if only top40 music is free, competitive pressure will annihilate all other forms of music because they would cost money. This also applies to retail sales, why pay $15 for something new when you could pay $10 for something popular. So two forces acting together means you'd end up with zero choices for music.
However I'm not convinced that the elimination of the Music Industry would be bad for Music. Even if it creates a wasteland, what lives in wastelands tends to be interesting.
Free and out of copyright are two very different things.
"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.
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.
>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.
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.
>you can't judge an entire audition based on a 6-second clip.
Trust me, guys can judge the attractiveness of a woman that fast, I google'd her and if she's the pix returned, she is a very beautiful woman. If the only point of watching live music, besides conspicuous consumption, is to actually watch a live human being perform, well, obviously a high level of beauty is an inherent part of that performance. If it wasn't, they'd just play a cd on the stage or something.
Which points out an obvious problem with her "research". Her mistake was in not equalizing the sample and making all the musicians wear literal gorilla costumes or something like that. You could still see / hear their individual style but guys couldn't consciously or unconsciously vote for the most beautiful musician.
Trust me, guys can judge the attractiveness of a woman that fast, I google'd her and if she's the pix returned, she is a very beautiful woman. If the only point of watching live music, besides conspicuous consumption, is to actually watch a live human being perform, well, obviously a high level of beauty is an inherent part of that performance. If it wasn't, they'd just play a cd on the stage or something.
Which points out an obvious problem with her "research". Her mistake was in not equalizing the sample and making all the musicians wear literal gorilla costumes or something like that. You could still see / hear their individual style but guys couldn't consciously or unconsciously vote for the most beautiful musician.
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.
> 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).
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).
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-boug...
[deleted]
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
(VEN 3 [0] prof rarely ever bought anything over $14.)
[0] http://catalog.ucdavis.edu/programs/VEN/VENcourses.html
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.
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.
That's a great long essay that says nothing at all.
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/)?
maybe if you blog enough you can rank in goog??
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/)?
maybe if you blog enough you can rank in goog??
Fine by me if that's their strategy. I love these blog posts.
agreed
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
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?
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.
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.
Snobbery is when people don't get it and try really hard to do so.
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?
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?
That book gets mentioned halfway down the article.
Isn't Blink the opposite, where experts are supposed to have the uncanny ability to detect fraud?
Yes, quite. What the author of this article is really writing about is fraudsters ability to detect stereotypes of experts, or becoming meta-experts.
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.