Transition to Substack + sociological takes

I’m Stefan Schubert, a researcher in philosophy and psychology at the London School of Economics. I previously blogged on Squarespace, but I’ve decided to move my blog to Substack (I’ve imported all 95 blogposts). My plan is to write about epistemology, effective altruism, social theory, and related topics.

This first post consists of a list of sociological takes on things that I find overrated or underrated, in the style of Tyler Cowen. I’ve written about these things before, and as such it provides an overview of much of my thinking about politics and society. Click on the links to see more elaboration.

Anglo-Saxon cultural dominance: underrated. Other countries look to the English-speaking world to an extent native English speakers often fail to see.

European homogeneity: overrated. Europe is much less homogeneous than many Americans, in particular, believe; and so it often makes more sense to talk about individual European countries than of “Europe”. Europe isn’t a thing.

The power of big business: overrated. They can’t pick government at will, and they often can’t prevent legislation that is to their disadvantage (cf. European regulations of the tech industry).

The power of governments: underrated. In liberal democracies, governments are relatively hands-off in normal times, and that may lead us to underestimate their power. But in times of crises—such as wars and pandemics—the extent of their power is revelead.

The power of ideology: underrated. Ideology isn’t just a veneer for baser instincts, but has huge independent causal influence on the world. One reason is that people’s ideological preferences are partially sincere. In the ancestral environment, it paid off to have sincere emotions and preferences, because it made people trust you more.

The influence of money on political opinions: overrated. Cynics tend to explain political views they object to by material self-interest, but often they’re rather due to misconceptions; e.g. about basic economics.

Elite competence: underrated. Since institutions and individuals are somewhat capable at identifying competence, influence and competence are correlated.

Policy reactions to big risks: underrated. We often implicitly assume that people will sleepwalk into catastrophe, but history shows they usually don’t.

The stability of current Western political systems: underrated. Before the advent of democracy, there were frequent conflicts over the basic structure of the political system. By contrast, democracy hasn’t been similarly challenged for a long time (in Western countries).

Lessons from ancient history: overrated. Many make analogies with, e.g. Rome, but since current society is so different, these analogies are often less useful than it seems.

The personal benefits of money: underrated. People often associate money with luxury consumption, but you can also buy much else with money. In particular, it can give you more security, in several respects.

The prevalence of anti-young ageism: underrated. People often associate ageism with discrimination of the old, but much ageism is rather directed against the young. Worse, many think it’s justified to discriminate against young people.

Country-specific explanations: overrated. People often explain phenomena by reference to events in their own country, overlooking the fact that other similar countries undergo similar developments. Always compare.

Trickle-down economics: underrated. Trickle-down economics is often criticised, but in a sense, it’s at the heart of the Rawlsian/social democratic argument against complete equality. Allowing some people to earn more than the average causes them to produce more, and part of that trickles down.

***

Is there a pattern to these takes? People sometimes say I’m a “common sense-bulldog”. There’s some of that here; e.g. you could argue that it’s pretty commonsensical that the government is powerful and that elites are more competent than the population average. On the other hand, “common sense” is a slippery notion, and it’s often not fully clear which position is “common sense”, and which one is contrarian.

Another interpretation is that many of these takes come from applying a certain critical spirit to other takes (whether contrarian or commonsensical). When people say things that sound good and exciting (“ideology is an unimportant smokescreen”) they often don’t present much argument. Similarly, people often make implicit assumptions (e.g. “analogies between Rome and our present situation make sense”) that are less obvious than they seem to think. In effect, they (and their listeners) are reasoning at breakneck speed, without stopping to scrutinise key parts of the argument. I try to take a slower approach, and ask “Is that actually true?”. It’s a strategy I plan to continue using on this Substack.