Why do the big "guns" get more credits for their technical skills?

[tooki]

When it comes to humans, when someone builds a good brand for themselves and becomes a "big gun", it is as if criticism of them (especially outside their field of expertise) suddenly becomes bashing/derogatory/unreasonable! 

But you got to love the hypocrisy in some, where it is ok for them to do the bashing onto whom they think deserves it, but don't you dare to bash someone they have put on a pedestal.

You can see this all around.

The problem is that it’s often not hypocrisy: one party may be much more knowledgeable about the situation, whereas the “idol”-bashers frequently come from a place of clickbait headlines and blind hatred.

No, I don't think that is the actual problem.  I actually feel that that is an emotive argument, borne from the same thing you are describing yourself...
I believe the problem is that too many humans only voice their opinions, instead of examining and explaining the basis of their opinion and reasoning.

Interestingly, this is still the exact same mechanism why one can only become a "big gun" in any career by building oneself into a brand.

Are you referring to me claiming the haters are uninformed? I have good reason to say that: they make patently false claims that are easily disproven, or are parroting dishonest headlines whose claims are similarly easily disproven (or placed into the larger context that eliminates whatever malicious intent the claim was meant to indicate).*

*Prime example of the parenthetical: the headlines claiming massive suicide rates at Apple supplier Foxconn, with the implicit or explicit claim being made that the working conditions caused a suicide epidemic. The missing context: 1. Foxconn isn’t just an Apple supplier, they supply almost every major IT company to some degree, and 2. the suicide rate at Foxconn during that period was significantly lower than that of China as a whole! Statistically speaking, there should have been far more suicides at Foxconn during the time in question. But “Foxconn installs suicide nets to reduce their already low suicide rate” isn’t as clickable a headline as “Apple supplier forced to install suicide nets to stop rash of employee suicides”.

[pcprogrammer]

There is no contradiction.   If you do see one, it is only due to my insufficient control of the English language.

Nah, I was just teasing you a bit. I now exactly what you mean. I'm the same. Like to be with others in not to big a groups. Prefer 4 to 6 max for a dinner. It is then still possible to have good conversation without it getting rowdy. But most of the time I prefer being on my own.

But this thread shows that it is possible to have a discussion without "overheating"

It is important to remember that any reaction to what someone writes on the net, is not based on the person of the writer, but only on their output.  We do not perceive the person themselves, except through what they write; and the perception is largely defined by our own experiences, and is fully subjective, not objective.

That is certainly true, because on the net you can only make up in your mind what a person is like based on what is written. What on this forum also has to be considered is that many are not native English writers. And that also makes a difference in what the intention of what is written might be. And errors are easily made, by both native and non native. No need to judge on that.

As to hypocrisy – in the "the practice of engaging in the same behaviour or activity for which one criticises another" sense –, we are all occasionally guilty of it; it too is natural.  What really matters, is whether one examines ones own behaviour the same way they examine others' behaviour, rationally.

O that is for sure, because we are all human, but some are better in seeing there own faults then others, which is also normal in human behavior. We are all individuals and differ from each other.

It is my hope that the same criteria and examination is extended to all, regardless of fame/brand/attractiveness/accomplishments/title, including to "big guns".  And in the same vein, that you can still appreciate a person, and/or their work, while doing that examination.

Mine too, but it is sometimes very hard to maintain some respect.

[pcprogrammer]

Are you referring to me claiming the haters are uninformed? I have good reason to say that: they make patently false claims that are easily disproven, or are parroting dishonest headlines whose claims are similarly easily disproven (or placed into the larger context that eliminates whatever malicious intent the claim was meant to indicate).*

But that is a big problem with news reporting. It needs to be attractive to lure in the "public", and the "public" does not like to dig deep and just take it in, distort it and then talk about it and things blow up. Think back at an exercise in school, where you sit in a circle and have to tell a story to your neighbor, which in turn has to retell the story to his neighbor, and so on. At the end the story has changed.

To get the actual fact above table you have to do the work and that is what most don't want to do.

Or someone is so fixated on something in particular that only that is the truth, no matter how well you can disprove it.

[james_s]

As a multiple citizen, I vote in two countries: USA and Switzerland. The experience couldn’t be more different.

Of course, there are duplicitous politicians here in Switzerland. The big difference is that due to the true direct democracy here, politicians can’t stray too far from what the people (all voters, not just their party’s!) want. At one place I worked here, the CEO of the company (~20 people) is also a politician in the federal parliament. And she said one thing that stuck with me, paraphrased: “If, as a politician here, you want to move things, you can’t do anything too far from what the people want, because then it’ll go to referendum and you, the politician, now have zero say”.

In USA it’s completely different: politicians say whatever their constituents want to hear, and then go do whatever the lobbies pay them to do. There was a famous study (Princeton university, I think) that found that will of the 99% has no measurable impact on policy. It’s a farce basically.

It's interesting, although I wonder how well such an arrangement would work somewhere like the USA, where there are now essentially two fairly evenly sized teams that are diametrically opposed and becoming steadily more polarized. A true democracy tends to disregard the wishes of the minority while the majority always get their way. Just what "the people" want depends on which people you talk to. I've never been to Switzerland but I suspect the population is significantly more homogeneous than that of the USA. Certainly the country is far smaller, the population of the entire nation being roughly equivalent to that of the city of New York.

[james_s]

But you got to love the hypocrisy in some, where it is ok for them to do the bashing onto whom they think deserves it, but don't you dare to bash someone they have put on a pedestal.

You can see this all around.

I'm quite convinced that this is something that is buried quite deeply in human psychology. At the root we are tribal animals and this is tribal behavior. Criticism of anything associated with the tribe is an attack on part of the identity of a member of that tribe and thus an attack on that individual.

[Nominal Animal]

The problem is that it’s often not hypocrisy: one party may be much more knowledgeable about the situation, whereas the “idol”-bashers frequently come from a place of clickbait headlines and blind hatred.

No, I don't think that is the actual problem.  I actually feel that that is an emotive argument, borne from the same thing you are describing yourself...
I believe the problem is that too many humans only voice their opinions, instead of examining and explaining the basis of their opinion and reasoning.

Interestingly, this is still the exact same mechanism why one can only become a "big gun" in any career by building oneself into a brand.

Are you referring to me claiming the haters are uninformed?

Not really; I was focusing on the "frequently come from ... blind hatred" part.

Both brand proponents and haters seem to be equally uninformed in my experience.  I agree with your example, and base the "equally" on the common retort that "this has worked for me for years, therefore you must be lying when you claim you are having issues with it".

But you got to love the hypocrisy in some, where it is ok for them to do the bashing onto whom they think deserves it, but don't you dare to bash someone they have put on a pedestal.

You can see this all around.

I'm quite convinced that this is something that is buried quite deeply in human psychology. At the root we are tribal animals and this is tribal behavior. Criticism of anything associated with the tribe is an attack on part of the identity of a member of that tribe and thus an attack on that individual.

Well put.  It is something we have to live with in general, and is therefore neither good nor bad, just a fact of life.  (There are many quite positive things that are intrinsically intertwined with that, like "neighbourliness" and altruistic co-operation within ones own "tribe", too.)

Beyond the tribal society, those instincts become counterproductive, especially for engineers/scientists/teachers, who need to apply engineering and scientific principles instead of tribal morality in their work.

[CatalinaWOW]

Branding and quality are not orthogonal.  A bit pedantic, but if they were truly orthogonal there would be no relationship between brands and quality.  Which is reputed because there are some brands based on quality. 

The old HP.  Craftsman.  Snap On.   Rolls-Royce.  L. L. Bean.

These associations may not last (HP), but at least for some period of time the product, the brand and the marketing are all tied together.  And most important, that connection is intentional.

No, man, just no.

You’re conflating quality, marketing, and reputation. Actual quality is completely orthogonal to marketing. Perceived quality (which isn’t actual quality) and reputation are definitely influenced by marketing, but none of those actually affect quality.

Note that there’s a unidirectional direct relationship between actual quality and perceived quality/reputarion
Actual quality can definitely directly affect perceived quality. But perceived quality doesn’t directly affect actual quality. (That’s defined by the materials and manufacturing processes only.)

Both you and Nominal have missed the point.  And HP is a good tool to describe why.  I understand and agree with your definition of statistical orthogonality.  And will concede that over long intervals the correlation will tend to zero.  Entropy says that is true for any kind of organization, from bacteria through solar systems.

The difference is in intent.  If the brand owner wants their brand associated with quality, actions will be taken to achieve that.  Honda and Toyota are other examples.  It was once true of HP and then as management changed it wasn't true.

When a relationship occurs as a result of intentional action you can't say that the correlation is meaningless.  You can however choose a data set that washes out that result. (All companies over all time.).

You can also use that information to make predictions about the quality of new products.  Barring changes in management or company policy the likelihood of good quality from a brand built on that reputation is higher than a random selection.

Perhaps another way of saying this is that the existence of a brand isn't correlated with quality.  And that the concept of brands is orthogonal to quality.  But some brands are associated with companies that have a strong commitment to quality.  Some have maintained that commitment for many decades.

[james_s]

Perhaps another way of saying this is that the existence of a brand isn't correlated with quality.  And that the concept of brands is orthogonal to quality.  But some brands are associated with companies that have a strong commitment to quality.  Some have maintained that commitment for many decades.

And then all too often short sighted management will reduce the quality and extract profit from the reputation. Sooner or later the brand becomes tarnished and then it is never perceived the same again, but by that point the person who did that has run off with the money.

[wraper]

And then all too often short sighted management will reduce the quality and extract profit from the reputation. Sooner or later the brand becomes tarnished and then it is never perceived the same again, but by that point the person who did that has run off with the money.

Considering it can be said that staying for more than a few years at big tech companies in California is a bad tone... And job hopping results in a much faster career progression.

[Nominal Animal]

Both you and Nominal have missed the point.  And HP is a good tool to describe why.  I understand and agree with your definition of statistical orthogonality.

No, I acknowledged your point already, and believe this is more a disagreement about the relationship between orthogonality and correlation in statistics.

I already explicitly described that there are brand owners that do emphasize product quality, but that I do not believe this has anything to do with how I use the term "orthogonal" in statistics.  That is, I acknowledged your point and agreed it happens, but insist that it has nothing to do with how I use the term "orthogonal" here.

To me, statistical orthogonality simply means that you have two variables whose correlation depends on completely extraneous things.  Correlation is possible, but not necessary.  Here, the key extraneous thing is brand owner intent.  As customers/users, we do not have access to the intent, but we can estimate it statistically, and use it to estimate the quality of a given product.  Note how this isn't modeling the brand–quality relationship, because there is only one particular brand involved; it is just using the brand as an identifier when estimating the brand owner intent for a particular product.

Perhaps I'm using the term "orthogonal" wrong; I could be, but I checked the terms I know in a dictionary, and it seemed the best match to describe the above.  (It is exactly this kind of key term nuances and understanding that I have the most trouble with in English.  When speaking English face-to-face, body language provides a lot of cues; when interacting in English almost exclusively with written text, those cues are derived from context, with very little data, and are easily misconstrued.  Another term whose subtext/cues I have trouble with is "to emerge": before emerging, did that thing exist or not? Was it just invisible/hidden?  What are the exact emotive subtext in comparison to "reveal", "create", "construct"?)

Now, above, by "as customers/users, we", I mean engineers and scientists and thing-oriented people as opposed to people-oriented people.
They are more likely to assess the brand by their emotive reaction to it, and thus are more likely to be swayed by advertisements (that work by associating certain mental imagery and emotions with the brand).  They more often choose the product because of the emotions and associations they experience with the brand, since the product itself (if brandless) does not create any emotional response –– remember, they're people-oriented, not thing-oriented.
It is at one extreme of the scale where we get both fanbois and haters.  At the other end of the scale, we have the brand-unaware nerds who cannot even remember the manufacturer of the device, but can recite their specifications at any time.

Obviously, most people are not either-or, but somewhat people-, somewhat thing-oriented, so their own experience and needs regarding the product itself means that persons approach to brands varies.

And that, in my opinion, means that observation and analysis of ones own behaviour and choices is important in understanding why we do the choices we do, so that we can learn how to do even better ones in the future.  Just commenting on others' is rarely useful, unless the behaviour is particularly notable.

It is also why talking shop, honestly, about the tool choices we have made, especially the errors in our judgement when choosing a tool –– or adopting the opinion or advice of a "big gun" ––, is so useful and fun to us more-thing-orienteds.  If done with compassion and not antagonistic emotions.