Tyler Cowen asks whether influential people develop conventional opinions. I think the question is a bit confused: Conventional opinions are, in practice, the opinions held by a majority of "influential people." If that were not true, then it's hard to see under what definition those people are influential. What are they influencing?Maybe a better question is how influential people develop many of the same opinions across a surprising array of issues. I can't think of many influential economic commentators with radical foreign policy views. To some degree, that might be because different aspects of worldviews are correlated: Left-of-center economists trust left-of-center sources because those sources seem sensible on economics. Once the trust is established, they're likelier to listen to those same sources on international affairs. Then the fact that all the influential people hold the same opinions makes those opinions conventional.I'll also note that influential is a weird concept: It's the sort of honorific usually awarded by other influential people. Otherwise, it has no weight. But that means that it's awarded based on the ability to influence already influential people. For instance, in the image at right, the influential editors of an influential magazine are choosing the most influential people. Presumably, they would not be choosing people who they did not find persuasive. So of course influential people develop similar opinions: They're influential by virtue of their ability to propagate opinions among other influential people.Writing this post has given me a splitting headache, incidentally. THE INFINITELY RECURSIVE NATURE OF INFLUENCE.
Tyler Cowen asks whether influential people develop conventional opinions. I think the question is a bit confused: Conventional opinions are, in practice, the opinions held by a majority of "influential people." If that were not true, then it's hard to see under what definition those people are influential. What are they influencing?Maybe a better question is how influential people develop many of the same opinions across a surprising array of issues. I can't think of many influential economic commentators with radical foreign policy views. To some degree, that might be because different aspects of worldviews are correlated: Left-of-center economists trust left-of-center sources because those sources seem sensible on economics. Once the trust is established, they're likelier to listen to those same sources on international affairs. Then the fact that all the influential people hold the same opinions makes those opinions conventional.I'll also note that influential is a weird concept: It's the sort of honorific usually awarded by other influential people. Otherwise, it has no weight. But that means that it's awarded based on the ability to influence already influential people. For instance, in the image at right, the influential editors of an influential magazine are choosing the most influential people. Presumably, they would not be choosing people who they did not find persuasive. So of course influential people develop similar opinions: They're influential by virtue of their ability to propagate opinions among other influential people.Writing this post has given me a splitting headache, incidentally. 
