Trust their competence in a given domain, yeah. To take a non-IQ-related field, I would have said “It’s fair to assume a six-year-old, or even an adult, doesn’t understand much about economics and therefore their opinion of it is worthless. Most don’t. And that’s okay, because if I need to prove I can explain it, I’ll just do. And then they’ll trust my understanding of it and listen to the opinions I base on it.”.
And that’s true to an extent. But an adult can pick up so much cheap credit condescending to children that they just don’t start trusting them. If a kid demonstrates their understanding of economics to an adult, the adult will praise the child, but not even think that the child’s opinions on economic policy (as opposed to, say, a pundit’s) should carry any weight.
I find this interesting-seeming but confusing. Could you elaborate?
You thought it was acceptable to not trust the young, but that if you talked to the old you could get them to trust you?
How does signaling enter in?
Trust their competence in a given domain, yeah. To take a non-IQ-related field, I would have said “It’s fair to assume a six-year-old, or even an adult, doesn’t understand much about economics and therefore their opinion of it is worthless. Most don’t. And that’s okay, because if I need to prove I can explain it, I’ll just do. And then they’ll trust my understanding of it and listen to the opinions I base on it.”.
And that’s true to an extent. But an adult can pick up so much cheap credit condescending to children that they just don’t start trusting them. If a kid demonstrates their understanding of economics to an adult, the adult will praise the child, but not even think that the child’s opinions on economic policy (as opposed to, say, a pundit’s) should carry any weight.
Among other things it can make the old not trust the young even after they have been given sufficient evidence of their expertise.