My interpretation of thesis drift is that it indicates that the person's arguments are motivated by power, and not by logic.
For social reasons, we aren't allowed to answer the "why" question with "because this solution expresses my power". So when asked why we believe something, instead we offer a series of parallel but ultimately unsatisfactory answers.
If you want to know why someone thinks tariffs are good, or is NIMBY, or <insert other populist opinion>, it's a dominance signal. You can't logic someone out of a dominance signal. You can give them benzos or SSRIs, or maybe talk therapy, but I feel like a discussion structured around the issue misses the point.
My charitable/naive take is that most smart people have never knowingly run into a problem that they couldn't solve with their intuitions - you can excel in school and in most jobs just by applying the models that were taught to you when you were young (to the point where it becomes part of your intuition) and by being conscientious and hard working.
If you point out a situation where their intuitions led them astray, they'll believe that you are tricking them or insulting them and they will spin in circles trying to work out why their intuitions were right all along, and they fall into thesis drift where they suggest a bunch of contradictory justifications. They aren't dumb or arrogant, they've just never been warned to look out for these kinds of illusions and we are all kind of defenseless against something unfamiliar. That's where something like investing is useful, you familiarize yourself with these kinds of problems.
There are of course a lot more less intelligent populists who distrust elites and science and fall for certain kinds of lies. So you get two groups of populists: the anti-intellectuals and some intellectuals who believe that they are immune to populism.
Very interesting and thoughtful piece. Really like how you wove your narrative through a series of disparate disciplines/topics.
Thanks!
My interpretation of thesis drift is that it indicates that the person's arguments are motivated by power, and not by logic.
For social reasons, we aren't allowed to answer the "why" question with "because this solution expresses my power". So when asked why we believe something, instead we offer a series of parallel but ultimately unsatisfactory answers.
If you want to know why someone thinks tariffs are good, or is NIMBY, or <insert other populist opinion>, it's a dominance signal. You can't logic someone out of a dominance signal. You can give them benzos or SSRIs, or maybe talk therapy, but I feel like a discussion structured around the issue misses the point.
My charitable/naive take is that most smart people have never knowingly run into a problem that they couldn't solve with their intuitions - you can excel in school and in most jobs just by applying the models that were taught to you when you were young (to the point where it becomes part of your intuition) and by being conscientious and hard working.
If you point out a situation where their intuitions led them astray, they'll believe that you are tricking them or insulting them and they will spin in circles trying to work out why their intuitions were right all along, and they fall into thesis drift where they suggest a bunch of contradictory justifications. They aren't dumb or arrogant, they've just never been warned to look out for these kinds of illusions and we are all kind of defenseless against something unfamiliar. That's where something like investing is useful, you familiarize yourself with these kinds of problems.
There are of course a lot more less intelligent populists who distrust elites and science and fall for certain kinds of lies. So you get two groups of populists: the anti-intellectuals and some intellectuals who believe that they are immune to populism.
This is a good take. There are blowhards trying to project power, and folks over their heads trying to salvage their sense of self.