On professional deformation

Phil recently tweeted that one problem with Starmer is that he doesn’t realize that “politics isn't the same as running the DPP.” This hints at a problem many of us have.

Phil’s right. Leading the Labour party isn’t like running the DPP. For one thing, the party isn’t as hierarchical as the DPP: people don’t simply do as they are told. And for another, a Labour leader needs to be a salesman, whereas the boss of the DPP does not. Moving from the DPP to the Labour leadership is like a boss moving from a monopoly utility to a growth company needing to catch customers’ attention in a competitive environment. The two jobs require different skill sets.

What’s more, the forensic skills Starmer acquired as a lawyer aren’t necessarily very useful to him now. He needs to intuit what voters will want in 2024. There’s not much hard evidence here, so an ability to handle a mountain of it isn’t much value.

Starmer’s failure to fully appreciate these shortcomings are, though, forgiveable because it’s a widespread error. The French call it deformation professionelle. Our professional training and experience don’t just give us particular skills. They also inculcate into us a mindset that whilst useful in some contexts is a menace in others. If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

We see the same thing in Johnson. A newspaper columnist must tell his readers what they want to hear and be superficially persuasive, but need not bother with detail, implementation or administration. He expresses a view and moves on without suffering any penalty for being wrong. Johnson is merely importing the characteristics he displayed at the Telegraph into Downing Street. He is proof of the fact that sometimes the skills you need to get a job aren’t the same as those you need to do it well.

Some lawyers are prone to professional deformation in that they are inclined to over-estimate the role of the law in social change. The “commitment” to spend 0.7% of GDP was an act of parliament. But as David Allen Green (a lawyer too smart to fall into this trap) says, this was “useless, useless, useless.” Useless it might have been, but unprecedented it was not. The 2010 Child Poverty Act tried to legislate away child poverty. But of course it failed. Abolishing poverty requires much more than posh people’s words.

Some engineers make the same error. They are apt to see design where there is in reality emergence and to seek more control than is possible. Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog show (pdf) that engineers tend to “take more extreme conservative and religious positions” – even to the point of being disproportionately Islamist terrorists:

Engineering as a degree might be relatively more attractive to individuals seeking cognitive ‘‘closure’’ and clear-cut answers as opposed to more open-ended sciences – a disposition which has been empirically linked to conservative political attitudes…Engineering is a subject in which individuals with a dislike for ambiguity might feel comfortable.

Similarly, doctors (like other professionals) can over-estimate their own expertise and be arrogant and patronizing towards laypeople.

And of course even good journalists are prone to biases such as overweighting individual agency to the neglect of emergence, focusing on salient events rather than slow-moving change, prioritizing scoops over improving public understanding or being too deferential to the (wrong?) experts. Such biases are important as they colour public attitudes to politics. 

Now, when I write about cognitive biases it is usually a memo to myself. And this is true here. Economists are also prone to professional deformation. Our fancy models which told us that globalization was a net good led us to under-estimate the prevalence and anger of losers from the process. Our emphasis on incentives can blind us to the fact that people’s motivations are often more complex. And my education and formative years led me to think that politics should be about economic policy which leaves me befuddled now that this is no longer the case.

None of this is to say that engineers, lawyers, doctors or economists have no place in policy-making. They emphatically do: heck, if we stretch the point there might even be a place for journalists. Instead, we must recognize that the perspectives of even the smartest of us are partial and biased.

What matters, therefore, is cognitive diversity. The lack of it can be dangerous. It’s possible perhaps that if Blair and Bush had been more influenced by good military minds the Iraq war wouldn’t have been so disastrous. And one reason why Brexit has been such a mess is that the decline of trades unions meant that the Tory party had lost people who had experience of tough negotiations and bargaining, to be replaced by those who thought that shouting like a toddler could get you want you wanted.

It’s too much to ask of anyone that they overcome the biases and partialities inculcated by years of training. We should, however, ask of decision-making processes in any organization that they harness diversity as a counterweight to professional deformation. It’s not obvious, however, that our political institutions do this.

Comments

[Dave Timoney]

One question this raises is whether professions have become more deforming over time. As they become more specialised and exclusive, under the structural imperatives of capitalism, is cognitive diversity inevitably narrowed? Is this then an argument for generalists in politics?

[Blissex]

«Leading the Labour party isn’t like running the DPP. For one thing, the party isn’t as hierarchical as the DPP: people don’t simply do as they are told.»

Instead of "deformation professionelle" it seems much easier to me to see that as a "centrist" political choice: the "whig" idea that since "There Is No Alternative" politics is not necessary, and all that is needed is managerialism. I even seem to remember reading a whole book that our blogger wrote in that topic. The political message of Keir Starmer and the other mandelsonians is that running New Labour and the government *should be* like running the DPP.

«We see the same thing in Johnson. A newspaper columnist must tell his readers what they want to hear and be superficially persuasive, but need not bother with detail, implementation or administration. He expresses a view and moves on without suffering any penalty for being wrong. Johnson is merely importing the characteristics he displayed at the Telegraph into Downing Street.»

As to electoral politics, those are the right skills indeed, that's why the Conservative Party chose him as leader despite his well known flaws: he wins referendums and elections with skilful pandering.

«Some lawyers are prone to professional deformation in that they are inclined to over-estimate the role of the law in social change.»

Maybe some barristers do, but in general lawyers know very well that "the law is an ass" and their success depends on negotiation and persuasion.

«Some engineers make the same error. They are apt to see design where there is in reality emergence and to seek more control than is possible.»

But there is often design, just inefficient design. Practicing engineers learn very quickly that those that looks like stupid choices are often the result of political choices or the result of wilful knavery, and that engineering design and projects are social structures more than technical ones.

«And of course even good journalists are prone to biases such as overweighting individual agency to the neglect of emergence, focusing on salient events rather than slow-moving change, prioritizing scoops over improving public understanding or being too deferential to the (wrong?) experts.»

But those are choices made not by journalists but by editors, and all those choices have a clear political flavour: mostly part of the "whig" view of history, and with torysm thrown in. There are other journalists that don't use those approaches, and are those who have editors who are not editing propaganda organs.

«Economists are also prone to professional deformation. Our fancy models which told us that globalization was a net good led us to under-estimate the prevalence and anger of losers from the process. Our emphasis on incentives can blind us to the fact that people’s motivations are often more complex.»

But those are political choices too, embedded in a neoliberal approach to "sell-side" Economics. There are many political economists that have completely different approaches.

Our blogger keeps mistaking as "innocent" habits of thought from cognitive biases and "deformation professionelle" what are instead right-wing (whig or tory) political habits of thoughts.

[Blissex]

«I even seem to remember reading a whole book that our blogger wrote in that topic.»

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1905641176
“The End of Politics: New Labour and the Folly of Managerialism”
https://fromarsetoelbow.blogspot.com/2015/07/managerialism-and-innovation.html

[Blissex]

«As to electoral politics, those are the right skills indeed, that's why the Conservative Party chose him as leader despite his well known flaws: he wins referendums and elections with skilful pandering.»

Consider this early win by Boris Johnson:

https://scramnews.com/boris-johnson-pretended-left-wing-university-elections/

«“In 1986, [Johnson] ran for the presidency of the [Oxford] Union. Though nothing like as rabid as the Balliol JCR, the Union was sufficiently left-wing for it to be inconceivable for a Tory to be elected as president. Boris concealed his Conservative affiliation and let it be widely understood that he was a Social Democrat. So far as I know, he told no actual lies, but his strategy recalled Thomas Macaulay’s words about the difference between lying and deceiving: “Metternich told lies all the time, and never deceived any one; Talleyrand never told a lie and deceived the whole world.” With Talleyrand-like skill, Boris got himself elected as president of the Oxford Union in Trinity Term.”»

Brexit got done, shares and property are booming: all accidental results of "deformation professionelle" as a journalist?

[joe]

Because someone has an opinion Starmer doesn’t realize that “politics isn't the same as running the DPP”, provides zero evidence that Starmer actually doesn’t realize that “politics isn't the same as running the DPP.”

Would he also say that Farage did not realize that running a Brexit campaign was not the same as running a trading desk in commodities?

Similarly, Steffen Hertog does not prove that engineers in general tend to “take more extreme conservative and religious positions” – even to the point of being disproportionately Islamist terrorists. He just assumes that some limited correlation is the same as cause. And from that thread bare bogus evidence generalises his prejudices to Engineers in general.

Engineering in the Middle East is the most sought after profession so would attract ambitious future leaders with strong political views. To be influential they would need to be devote. This may more likely be a more convincing reason for Hertog's data local to the Middle East.

He makes a completely uninformed guess that Engineering as a degree might be relatively more attractive to individuals seeking cognitive ‘‘closure’’ and clear-cut answers as opposed to more open-ended sciences.

There are no clear cut answers in Engineering - just years of trial and error and negotiation.

There is zero silo mentality but years of constructive discussions with environmentalists, politicians, media, banks, insurers, local population, Health & Safety Executive, construction unions, contractors, sub-contractors, suppliers, logistics companies, emergency services ad police, universities, bodies such as National Trust, local and national media etc,etc.

Every one of them has a different, often conflicting, clear cut answer to what is needed on the project. A skilled Engineer has to take all those views into account and compromise to the best overall solution for all parties. There are zero clear cut answers.

A typical example is road tunnel construction in UK. The planning stage can go on for 30 years of change and indecision and the actual build 3 or 4 years. The personnel at the end are not the ones at the beginning. In that time any hypothetical closed solution that there might have been in someone's mind would have long disappeared.

I am not aware, nor MI6, that any religious or conservative views were ever expressed by any of the Engineers involved in any UK project.

[rsm]

Why shouldn't we give Iraqis a dollar-denominated basic income and beam in free uncensored internet so they can self-organize? Drop freedom of speech, not bombs?

And isn't Joe just saying that everything is political, including engineering and science?

[TowerBridge]

Good article, great comments.

[ltr]

What matters, therefore, is cognitive diversity....

[ Really, really nice argument; especially so in the United States when think tanks are both lacking in cognitive diversity and contribute so highly to political-administrative appointments. ]

[A Barrister]

Kier Starmer did not run the DPP. He *was* the DPP. The Director of Public Prosecutions. The organisation he ran was the Crown Prosecution Service.

You’re welcome.

[rsm]

"The US is considering ways to provide the people of Cuba with internet access, President Biden said on Thursday."

Maybe the idea from my last comment is finally bubbling up?

[Boyo]

“Our fancy models which told us that globalization was a net good led us to under-estimate the prevalence and anger of losers from the process.”

Did your economic models (presumably CBA) not give standing to policy losers?

[ltr]

"The US is considering ways to provide the people of Cuba with internet access, President Biden said on Thursday."

The United States needs to destroy still another country.

[rsm]

Is China next?

"Cuba is accused of having adopted China-made technology systems to control and block internet access"

Isn't cyberwarfare that gives individuals (relatively) free speech a good thing?

How long can the CCP stay in power without censorship?

[Jim]

All very fine and large, a bit more diversity, chuck in a bit of LGBT alphabet soup and a few trickcyclists and all will be well with the world.

Stepping back to Iraq etc. When push comes to shove the world gets driven by the biggest ba%^ards. Those most forceful and determined and ruthless. They attract power because power likes to win - more profitable for those who have it.

Were those pushing the Iraq agenda ignorant of the facts - I doubt it. But for American politicians looking the tough guy is important - it attracts votes and the Afghan project was grinding to stalemate. Tough guys fearful that other tough guys - or better thinkers - will steal their lunch is a recipe for trouble.

But in the end those tough guys lost out, only to be replaced by new ones. For now the ba%^ards are taking a back seat, but as soon as an excuse presents, they will be back. The Yin and Yang of power goes on for ever.

[ltr]

"Is China next?"

The voice of a monster who would destroy a country of 1.4 billion people. No matter though, China has been thriving and will continue to thrive:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=F7ZN

August 4, 2014

Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China and United Kingdom, 1977-2020

(Percent change)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=F801

August 4, 2014

Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China and United Kingdom, 1977-2020

(Indexed to 1977)

[rsm]

Was censorship really ever necessary in China, or anywhere?

Is it wrong to hope the Great Firewall of China suffers the same fate as the physical wall whence it got its name, but this time the invading hordes will come from within?

From wikipedia:

"The Manchus were finally able to cross the Great Wall in 1644"

"the so-called Willow Palisade, following a line similar to that of the Ming Liaodong Wall, was constructed by the Qing rulers in Manchuria. Its purpose, however, was not defense but rather to prevent Han Chinese migration into Manchuria."

Isn't this article also instructive?

> Usually it is not war that is the impetus for building a barrier, Shelach-Lavi said. “We tend to think the walls are built against armies, but probably a lot are related to the movement of refugees, or from looming pressure of refugees and the perception — that is not necessarily true — that they [the rulers] need to stop them,” he said.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/chinas-fabled-genghis-khan-wall-was-not-actually-built-to-keep-him-out/

[ltr]

Ever the monster goes on:

Is it wrong to hope the Great Firewall of China suffers the same fate as the physical wall whence it got its name, but this time the invading hordes will come from within?

[ Evidently the need is to dictate how 1.4 billion non-British people will live, but that is prejudiced and absurd and will of course be fruitless. Try moving beyond prejudice. Try. ]

[rsm]

Is it ironic that our blogger would not even be able to criticize the government in CCP's China?

[Jan Wiklund]

Diversity is actually the old idea behind parliamentarism - every constituency elects some of their own. A farmer here, a merchant there, a cobbler there.

I believe the reason why Scandinavia was so successful up to about 1970 was that people there actually did so. MPs had about the same professions as their electorates. While the French and the Americans let themselves be represented by lawyers, and the British and the Germans let themselves be represented by lawyers and landowners.

However, with the professionalization of politics this doesn't apply any longer. The question is how to get straight representation back. Obviously it has to do with the working of the elective mechanism. Perhaps it has to do with something even before that in the stream.

[Blissex]

«However, with the professionalization of politics this doesn't apply any longer. The question is how to get straight representation back.»

The reason why rentier capitalists like representative democracy so much (more than even dictatorships) has little to nothing to do with "democracy", it is that elected representatives desperately need campaign donations, and are therefore easy and cheap to purchase, while "big men" like dictators or kings think they are principals and can even extort from rentier capitalists rather than letting themselves be cheaply bribed.

The ideal government for wealthy "influencers" is one that has no or little power base of its down, and needs the funding from "influencers" to keep being on top. Professional politicians are as a rule employees of their donors.

That is why New Labour and the Conservatives have as a standard attack on Labour that it is funded by the labor unions, and Keir Starmer's New New Labour is committed to switch its funding from "trot" members to "high net worth" donors:

https://labourlist.org/2021/07/labour-moves-to-cut-staff-as-party-reserves-down-to-one-months-payroll/
«Party insiders have been hoping that the new leadership would be able to attract high-net-worth individuals as new private donors.»

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/richard-leonard-resigns-as-scottish-labour-leader-7k5mpwgkp
«His resignation followed a conference call involving senior party figures and potential donors, who are understood to have said that they would not back Labour while Mr Leonard remained in post.»

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/08/former-labour-donors-returning-to-party-under-keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn
«Juliet Rosenfeld, whose late husband Andrew was one of Labour’s most generous donors under Ed Miliband’s leadership, said she had rejoined the party to vote in the leadership contest. “I voted for Keir and am delighted he has won,” she said. “He is someone ‘without a side’. I trust him completely on the issues that matter, and I will, and have, encouraged others to come back to Labour.”»

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ralph-nader-the-democrats-are-unable-to-defend-the-u-s-from-the-most-vicious-republican-party-in-history/
«RALPH NADER: Do you want me to go through the history of the decline and decadence of the Democratic Party? I’m going to give you millstones around the Democratic Party neck that are milestones.
The first big one was in 1979. Tony Coelho, who was a congressman from California, and who ran the House Democratic Campaign treasure chest, convinced the Democrats that they should bid for corporate money, corporate PACs, that they could raise a lot of money.
Why leave it up to Republicans and simply rely on the dwindling labor union base for money, when you had a huge honeypot in the corporate area? And they did.»