« 9/11 and Bush | Main | Bloggers as Reporters »
August 13, 2007
Autodidacts
I really like Josh Green's description of Rove, which also describes a whole class of folks I know, and I think accounts for some of the more remarkable errors in judgment that afflict this town:
[Rove] was and remains an autodidact, and a large part of his self-image depends on showing that his command of history and politics is an order of magnitude greater than other people’s. Rove has a need to outdo everybody else that seems to inform his sometimes contrarian views of history. It’s not enough for him to have read everything; he needs to have read everything and arrived at insights that others missed.
That's as good a description of the motivator behind self-consciously counter-intuitive journalism as I've ever read. It's not that conclusions you don't expect are worthless -- though, increasingly, such journalism is paint-by-the-numbers predictable -- but if you're searching for clever, surprising judgments as a matter of course, you're going to reach a lot of wrong answers through simple selection bias. Sometimes, "everybody" is not wrong, and the field's many experts weren't just waiting for a 27-year-old staff writer to come in and brilliantly reinterpret all the existing data.
But to report what's already known, or suspected, doesn't demonstrate any particular brilliance on the part of the writer, and so you have to look harder, until you begin to see the answers that others have missed -- only problem is, you often squint so hard that the answers you see aren't really there.
August 13, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
I admit that I have a personal bias coming from an academic/research background, but autodictats who claim to have some special insight in their interpretations are invariably less than meets the eye. One of the purposes of graduate school is not only to learn all there is to know about a field but also to force people out of cliched thinking or end up restated paths that others have gone down long before. The autodictat like Rove can be knowledgeable and smart (or not), but his weakness is that he wasn't constantly presenting his ideas to someone more knowledgeable than him and being met over and over again with the response of, "no, someone else thought of that 20 years ago, and the idea never went anywhere," until he finally hit on something original. And even then, you're going to have a bunch of people telling you that the data you think proves your ideas are original don't relaly say that at all, and you'll have to start all over again until you find something right.
We have an entire generation of journalists, think tank "fellows", and political advisors who like to strut their expertise but yet never went through this process-- their sense of expertise seems to come from the fact that people much less knowledgeable than them-- politicians, journalists, and donors -- think they are experts.
Posted by: Tyro | Aug 13, 2007 11:53:38 AM
I have nothing to contribute to the conversation (except perhaps that this also goes the other way, and people who whine about not understanding, oh let's pick a random issue, how human activity could adversely affect the earth's climate in such a way as to make it potentially very dangerous for us all, seem to feel that they have the right to understand it all without having studied the science behind it at all, like "but it just doesn't make sense to me, a writer with an English degree!" is somehow an acceptable criticism of a conclusion arrived at by people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about) but I wanted to say that I love this:
Sometimes, "everybody" is not wrong, and the field's many experts weren't just waiting for a 27-year-old staff writer to come in and brilliantly reinterpret all the existing data.
Posted by: Isabel | Aug 13, 2007 12:09:06 PM
Matt had a good point about this phenomenon in punditry awhile back. As a pundit, you're rewarded more for coming up with off-the-wall predictions, because if one of them comes true, you look like a genius and everyone overlooks the 40,000 other predictions you made that were utterly false.
Posted by: Clark | Aug 13, 2007 12:09:40 PM
on the gripping hand - Rove has been astonishingly successful at what he does, often to the chagrin of experts who disagreed with him.
Posted by: Deep Thought | Aug 13, 2007 12:12:01 PM
There is no phenomenon in American media more grating and worthless to me than the Slate.com-style "contrarian impulse." It produces more garbage analysis of just about everything in our political discourse than I can imagine.
Posted by: Freddie | Aug 13, 2007 12:24:17 PM
This is the best....
"you often squint so hard that the answers you see aren't really there."
On an entirely different playing field...
If we look hard enough for the Higgs, bounds-in-systems
or strings...will we not in fact 'find' them?
Does really hard looking create the perception?
Somebody way smarter'n me already has a name for that kind of intensity ...
but I loved your 'squint' allusion.
Posted by: has_te | Aug 13, 2007 1:10:04 PM
This is the best....
"you often squint so hard that the answers you see aren't really there."
On an entirely different playing field...
If we look hard enough for the Higgs, bounds-in-systems
or strings...will we not in fact 'find' them?
Does really hard looking create the perception?
Somebody way smarter'n me already has a name for that kind of intensity ...
but I loved your 'squint' allusion.
Posted by: has_te | Aug 13, 2007 1:12:13 PM
contrarians? we don't have any of those around here, surely...
Posted by: Meh | Aug 13, 2007 2:39:24 PM
contrarians? we don't have any of those around here, surely...
Oh, what the hell, let me take a stab at it. :)
The interpretation is interesting, but I don't know that it explains Rove - pr [erhaps, more to the point, our (as opposition) construction of Rove. It's not his interpretations of things that struck me, it was how self satisfied he was... I mean, he was wrong, we all knew he was wrong... and yet he continued to seem powerful and insightful despite all of this.
I've long thought - ooh, this might be my auto-didact, again - that the problem Democrats have had is a consistent insistence on "looking deeper." We don't buy surface answers. We expect more - something hidden, just beneath the surface. And always, always, the Bush Administration has succeeded with its tactics, the Rove-ian ones, by being exactly what they appeared to be. There was, despite everyone's insistence, no nuance t be read into their statements. There was not a hidden agenda. There was an agenda, we knew what it was... and we chose, for varying lengths of time, to believe it. He couldn't possibly be serious. He couldn't possibly be that willful. He couldn't possibly, at a 37% approval rating, continue an absurd, pointless military conflict with no chance of a successful resolution.
Well, of course, he could.
Now, you tell me - is the problem here with the "auto-didact"?
I'm thinking... no. :)
Posted by: weboy | Aug 13, 2007 4:34:57 PM
Well, no, I don't think Rove's self-taught background is problematic (his ideas, tactics and even personality are problematic, but not his background).
His initial field was political campaigning, and:
1. there are no real academic experts on political campaigning. It's not a hard science, and while it might be an art, there's pretty much no reliable training for it. There are people who failed elementary school who are better at it than people with Ivy League graduate degrees.
2. The vast majority of the people who are in campaigning (except for the statisticians) have no educational background in it whatsoever.
When Rove transitioned to being a policy maker, it wasn't his self-taught background that hurt him, it was that his guiding philosophy was nonsense.
Clinton's chiefs of staff were Mack McLarty (a car dealer and politician), Panetta (a lawyer and politician), Bowles (banker), and Podesta. Aside from Podesta, who indeed was a longtime professional policy analyst, none of Clinton's Chiefs of Staff had any graduate training in public policy, history or political science (Panetta has a law degree, and Bowles has an MBA, and McLarty has no graduate degrees).
It's not because Panetta got a JD or Bowles had an MBA that made them better policy-makers. Paul Wolfowitz got a doctorate in political science from the University of Chicago and is one of the worst policy-makers around. (Richard Perle, with a master's from Princeton, isn't any better).
Posted by: burritoboy | Aug 13, 2007 7:05:59 PM
I'm sorry, but hold on -- how is this any different from the author of this blog declaring himself, at the tender age of what, 22?, an expert on health-care policy?
Posted by: poster | Aug 14, 2007 10:42:36 AM
What do you consider an autodidact?
I never went to college. I'm an autodidact. The Harvard grad at the New Republic straining for a contrarian reading of some issue might be wrong, but he (it's always a he) seems to be pretty well educated from my point of view.
As an autodidact I'm frequently taken in by stuff like that but partly that's because I'm impressed by people with degrees from good schools.
Posted by: dSmith | Aug 14, 2007 10:45:58 AM
"We have an entire generation of journalists, think tank "fellows", and political advisors who like to strut their expertise but yet never went through this process-- their sense of expertise seems to come from the fact that people much less knowledgeable than them-- politicians, journalists, and donors -- think they are experts."
Yeah, but to echo what BurritoBoy said, but there's endless reams of PhDs-for-hire at think-tanks. While being an autodidact risks parroting inananity gleaned from a magazine article or a lay nonfiction book as an innovative insight, a PhD-for-hire risks using more complicated means of sophistry.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | Aug 14, 2007 11:24:33 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.