Question

Consider the following examples. How do these statements mishandle authorities? Explain your reasoning.

Example 1: “Because Martin Sheen played the president on Television, he’d probably make a great president in real life.”

Example 2: “One day robots will enslave us all. It’s true. My computer science teacher says so.”

Example 3: “This internet news site said that the candidate punches babies. We know that’s true because it’s on the internet.

Answer 1

The background for my answer was provided by Robert Cialdini in his book "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion". Of the six principles of persuasion listed by him, the third principle is "Authority".

In simple words we're more likely to be influenced (in forming our opinions and decisions) by figures in a position of authority. This is generally a useful heuristic or mental shortcut - if a doctor from the World Health Organization (WHO) makes a statement, it's likely credible.

The problem arises when we confuse a heuristic for a sufficient condition - being in a position of authority does not guarantee credibility, especially if the authority wasn't gained in a competitive manner.
^ Example 1: Why do we believe the WHO doctor? Because unless the doctor was competent they wouldn't have reached that position in the first place.

Example 2: Going back a century, if you saw a public spokeperson with a substantial crowd holding on to his words, you would likely perceive them as an authority figure; if they weren't credible, there wouldn't be such a large crowd.

Example 3: Going back a century, if you had a book in your hand on the subject of Physics, likely you would perceive the writer of that book as an authority - if they weren't an authority they would not have been able to convince the publisher to print and distribute their book (which is a risky upfront investment by the publisher).

But if we rely on these heuristics exclusively, we're likely to go amiss. For example, claquers have been around for a long time; they are professionals hired to applaud at a show. The audience, not knowing they are claquers, take the claquers' enthusiasm as representative of the show's quality. In turn, they themselves - the true audience - develop a positive impression about the show; such systematic biases have been demonstrated, where we (humans) find something appealing and are likely to decide in its favor if (in our perception) a lot of people have already done so (in microeconomics this would be called the bandwagon effect)

Similarly, Internet news sites are not like books in the 20th century - it does not take as much money to get one of these sites up and running, with paid advertising sending traffic its way from social media. The mere existence of the website is not representative of quality (credibility or veracity) anymore.

As for the first two examples, authority in one area does not translate to authority in another area. Great teachers do not always make tech visionaries like Steve Jobs, tech visionaries do not necessarily make good teachers. Sprinters need not make good swimmers and vice versa; a microeconomics professor need not necessarily be business-savvy.

Skills are generally domain-specific, and this is especially true for high-end skills. Unfortunately, people are misled by the halo effect - the awe they experience at Charlie Sheen's way of carrying himself on the screen carries over to their judgment of his (real or potential) performance in totally disconnected domains.