Connecting the Dots - Idea Meritocracy, Expert Blindness, and the Fed

March 20, 2018

Idea Meritocracy, Expert Blindness, and the Fed

By Patrick Watson

When you have a major problem, you consult an expert—at least, that’s the idea. But in recent years, we’ve learned the hard way that so-called “experts” don’t always know what they’re talking about.

It was “experts” who said the Federal Reserve could stimulate the economy back to health... that Donald Trump could never be president... and that social media would unite the world.

Oops.

Some have reacted by tossing out the whole concept of expertise, as in, “No one really knows anything, so my opinion is as good as yours.”

But if the question is whether my liver functions correctly, I don’t want to hear opinions, but cold, hard facts from a well-trained physician.

In finance and investment, too, knowing which “expert” claims to trust is a big conundrum. The lethal mix of too much information and not enough knowledge is probably costing you money… and it might cost you even more.

Photo: Getty Images

Mid-Tier Rock Star

In the past two weeks, I’ve attended two consecutive conferences: our own Strategic Investment Conference (SIC) in San Diego, and South by Southwest back here in Austin.

Both are great events that I highly recommend—yet they are radically different. Unlike the SIC, South by Southwest draws few financial industry people, except venture capital investors. So I was surprised to see Ray Dalio on the agenda.

Dalio, if you don’t know, is one of the world’s most successful hedge fund managers. His Connecticut-based Bridgewater Associates manages about $150 billion, and Dalio himself is a multibillionaire. He would be a rock star at any investment event, but at SXSW he was mid-tier. His session, which I attended, drew maybe 500 people out of 20,000+ at the event.

Instead of investment ideas, Dalio discussed how he’s made Bridgewater an “idea meritocracy.” Everyone who works there constantly rates everyone else on dozens of criteria, all of which go into an algorithm that emits “believability-weighted” decisions.

Dalio thinks this works better than either democracy or autocracy and other organizations should try it. Of course, even large, successful hedge funds sometimes fall apart suddenly—so maybe celebration is premature.

Nonetheless, Dalio’s approach is a notable attempt to separate true expertise from mere guesswork. Others are trying to do the same.

Photo: Getty Images

Zero Correlation

After hearing Ray Dalio, I went to another SXSW session called, “How Neuroscience Reveals Your Expert Blindness.” The speakers were Richard Bina of ad agency RPA and Dr. Carl Marci of Nielsen Consumer Research.

Bina and Marci talked about a large study they had done for Honda. The goal: compare how well TV commercials worked on prospective buyers vs. Honda’s own experts.

To test this, they assembled two panels: regular people who were shopping for cars, and executives from Honda dealerships.

The test subjects all watched an hour of TV comedy shows including both Honda and other commercials, just like you would at home... except attached to machines measuring brain activity, eye movement, and so on. This let the researchers see exactly what part of the TV screen drew their eyes and which specific words caught their attention.

The results surprised everyone.

The words and images Honda executives liked had almost zero correlation to those that attracted potential customers. These “experts” homed in on what they knew: the car’s features and financing terms. Consumers, on the other hand, made much more emotional connections.

Keep in mind, this happened involuntarily. Their bodily reactions showed these experts didn’t know nearly as much about selling cars as they thought.

Bina and Marci called this “expert blindness.” The very fact that you are an expert on something can cause subconscious changes—you behave differently and may not assess yourself accurately.

That seems to support Ray Dalio’s method, in which experts rate their peers. But these Honda executives regarded each other as experts. They seemed to lose objectivity both with themselves and those with similar expertise.

So that brings up the question, what other experts might similarly misunderstand the people they supposedly serve?

Photo: Getty Images

Deep Breathing Fed

Neuroscience says car dealers don’t understand what makes people buy cars. Their own expertise blinds them. Maybe that explains some of the automotive industry’s woes.

Could the same phenomenon apply to other kinds of experts? We lack hard data, but it seems plausible.

Suppose we connected Federal Reserve governors to Dr. Marci’s instruments while they made monetary policy decisions. Then we compared it to consumers and small-business owners seeing the same data.

Would we see different reactions? I suspect so. The Fed’s experts might direct their attention at data the business owners ignored, and vice versa.

But, much like auto dealers, Fed officials seek to elicit specific reactions from businesses and consumers. They want to make bankers lend or entice business owners to invest in new capacity. But if they don’t understand what makes bankers and business owners do those things, it probably won’t work. They could even make matters worse.

There may be a solution, though. In their SXSW talk, Bina and Marci described a “bias inoculation” technique that, as complex as it sounds, is really a simple, commonsense matter: If you’re subject to expert blindness, try to embrace the normal person inside you. Meditation can help with that.

Will Jerome Powell open today’s FOMC meeting with five minutes of deep breathing? Probably not—but maybe he should.

As for the rest of us, the challenge is to listen to the right experts and avoid the wrong ones. John Mauldin and I are working on a new project we think will help, so stay tuned.

See you at the top,

Patrick Watson

P.S. If you’re reading this because someone shared it with you, click here to get your own free Connecting the Dots subscription. You can also follow me on Twitter: @PatrickW.

Senior Economic Analyst Patrick Watson is a master in connecting the dots and finding out where budding trends are leading. Patrick is the editor of Mauldin Economics’ high-yield income letter, Yield Shark, and co-editor of the premium alert service, Macro Growth & Income Alert. You can also follow him on Twitter (@PatrickW) to see his commentary on current events.

Share Your Thoughts on This Article

Use of this content, the Mauldin Economics website, and related sites and applications is provided under the Mauldin Economics Terms & Conditions of Use.

Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited

The information provided in this publication is private, privileged, and confidential information, licensed for your sole individual use as a subscriber. Mauldin Economics reserves all rights to the content of this publication and related materials. Forwarding, copying, disseminating, or distributing this report in whole or in part, including substantial quotation of any portion the publication or any release of specific investment recommendations, is strictly prohibited.
Participation in such activity is grounds for immediate termination of all subscriptions of registered subscribers deemed to be involved at Mauldin Economics’ sole discretion, may violate the copyright laws of the United States, and may subject the violator to legal prosecution. Mauldin Economics reserves the right to monitor the use of this publication without disclosure by any electronic means it deems necessary and may change those means without notice at any time. If you have received this publication and are not the intended subscriber, please contact service@mauldineconomics.com.

Disclaimers

The Mauldin Economics website, Yield Shark, Thoughts from the Frontline, Patrick Cox’s Tech Digest, Outside the Box, Over My Shoulder, World Money Analyst, Street Freak, ETF 20/20, Just One Trade, Transformational Technology Alert, Rational Bear, The 10th Man, Connecting the Dots, This Week in Geopolitics, Stray Reflections, and Conversations are published by Mauldin Economics, LLC. Information contained in such publications is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The information contained in such publications is not intended to constitute individual investment advice and is not designed to meet your personal financial situation. The opinions expressed in such publications are those of the publisher and are subject to change without notice. The information in such publications may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments.
John Mauldin, Mauldin Economics, LLC and other entities in which he has an interest, employees, officers, family, and associates may from time to time have positions in the securities or commodities covered in these publications or web site. Corporate policies are in effect that attempt to avoid potential conflicts of interest and resolve conflicts of interest that do arise in a timely fashion.
Mauldin Economics, LLC reserves the right to cancel any subscription at any time, and if it does so it will promptly refund to the subscriber the amount of the subscription payment previously received relating to the remaining subscription period. Cancellation of a subscription may result from any unauthorized use or reproduction or rebroadcast of any Mauldin Economics publication or website, any infringement or misappropriation of Mauldin Economics, LLC’s proprietary rights, or any other reason determined in the sole discretion of Mauldin Economics, LLC.

Affiliate Notice

© Copyright 2018 Mauldin Economics