Epistemocracy
Taleb calls his imagined society an epistemocracy: leaders acknowledge their ignorance and remain willing to change their minds. He contrasts that ideal with the appeal of leaders who project certainty.
THE IDEA
Epistemocracy
Everyone has an idea of utopia. For many it means equality, universal justice, freedom from oppression, freedom from work (for some it may be the more modest, though no more attainable, society with commuter trains free of lawyers on cell phones). To me utopia is an epistemocracy, a society in which anyone of rank is an epistemocrat, and where epistemocrats manage to be elected. It would be a society governed from the basis of the awareness of ignorance, not knowledge.
Alas, one cannot assert authority by accepting one’s own fallibility. Simply, people need to be blinded by knowledge—we are made to follow leaders who can gather people together because the advantages of being in groups trump the disadvantages of being alone. It has been more profitable for us to bind together in the wrong direction than to be alone in the right one. Those who have followed the assertive idiot rather than the introspective wise person have passed us some of their genes. This is apparent from a social pathology: psychopaths rally followers.
Once in a while you encounter members of the human species with so much intellectual superiority that they can change their minds effortlessly.
Note here the following Black Swan asymmetry. I believe that you can be dead certain about some things, and ought to be so. You can be more confident about disconfirmation than confirmation. Karl Popper was accused of promoting self-doubt while writing in an aggressive and confident tone (an accusation that is occasionally addressed to this author by people who don’t follow my logic of skeptical empiricism). Fortunately, we have learned a lot since Montaigne about how to carry on the skeptical-empirical enterprise. The Black Swan asymmetry allows you to be confident about what is wrong, not about what you believe is right. Karl Popper was once asked whether one “could falsify falsification” (in other words, if one could be skeptical about skepticism). His answer was that he threw students out of his lectures for asking far more intelligent questions than that one. Quite tough, Sir Karl was.
When to use it
Selecting political representatives who are open about uncertainty and fallibility.
Making decisions in high-uncertainty environments (e.g., investing, startups) by focusing on what could be wrong.
Evaluating scientific claims by prioritizing falsification over confirmation.
Avoiding groupthink in organizations by encouraging leaders to express doubt and invite critical feedback.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
The Assertive Idiot Leader
Taleb argues that a confident but mistaken leader may attract people who value the security of belonging to a group. The example illustrates his concern that confidence can be mistaken for knowledge.
Popper's Falsification Anecdote
In Taleb’s account, Popper is asked whether falsification itself could be falsified. He replies that he has expelled students for asking far more intelligent questions. The anecdote conveys his dismissive response; it does not say he expelled this questioner.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
How can a society promote leaders who acknowledge their ignorance rather than project certainty?
When has a leader’s confidence made a weak claim seem convincing? What evidence would help you assess the claim independently?
How does the Black Swan asymmetry apply to your own decision-making in politics or work?
References
- The Logic of Scientific Discovery — Karl Popper (1934)
- Essays — Michel de Montaigne (1580)
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Black Swan The Impact of the Highly Improbable With a new section On Robustness and Fragility (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)