Tyler Cowen responde a la pregunta de por qué la gente influyente sostiene opiniones maisntream o convencionales. Básicamente su respuesta gira en torno a cómo la gente "se vende" conforme adquiere influencia. O, más bien, "se vende" para adquirir influencia. Al mismo tiempo, a medida que uno se vuelve influyente tiene menos interés en ofender a sus amigos influyentes, y tiene una opinión mejor del statu quo, que le es favorable y racionaliza como meritocrático. A las personas influyentes, prosigue Cowen, se las paga para escribir sobre cuestiones convencionales, y en este contexto es normal que desarrollen habilidades ligadas a la convencionlidad.
Bastante más jugo hay en los comentarios de algunos lectores de Marginal Revolution. Copio alguna de esas opiniones.
Roger Koppl:
1) By definition, influential people can directly influence outcomes by the opinions they express, whereas marginal persons cannot. Thus, the influential person can often use a conventional argument to achieve an outcome, whereas a marginal person can influence outcomes only by using an unconventional argument that wins in the long run. In other words, the opportunity cost (in terms of social outcomes) of expressing an unconventional opinion is lower for marginal persons, higher for influential persons.
2) Entry into the mainstream increases one's knowledge of facts and arguments supporting conventional opinions.
3) Point 2) lets you respond the incentives of point 1) without having to think "I'm selling out."
JP:
Becoming more influential usually goes hand-in-hand with becoming older and becoming more knowledgeable about the ways of the world (since one's access to inside information improves). One therefore comes to see that maybe there are good reasons why the status quo is what it is. (Maybe call it "the devil you know" syndrome.) To paraphrase from memory something a James Gould Cozzens protagonist says somewhere, When you're young, you're taught that people aren't what they appear to be. But when you get older, you realize that people are exactly what they appear to be, if you have the eyes to see it.
Eliezer Yudkowsky:
The evolutionary psychology here seems really obvious. If you get cues telling you you're low-status, you'll take high-variance status bets - this manifests as a feeling of being open to odd ideas. If you get cues telling you you're high-status, people deferring to you and respecting you, then it pays to try to keep your high status.
Testable prediction: women will exhibit less mainstreaming as a function of status increases than men.
Por cierto, ¿es el propio Tyler Cowen un ejemplo que ilustra su teoría? De joven era un liberal radical de orientación austriaca, ahora que se ha vuelto tan influyente se considera liberal clásico tolerante con el statu quo, se ubica en esencia dentro de la escuela neoclásica y está plenamente integrado en la opinión mainstream. Hmmm...
