added content

1 files changed, 56 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/content/blog/thoughtleaders.md b/content/blog/thoughtleaders.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..137ebc0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/blog/thoughtleaders.md
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+---
+title: i hate ‘though leadership’
+date: 2025-03-18
+showdate: true
+tags: ['rant', '']
+---
+
+There has been a new term that I have seen being thrown around, that of 'thought leaders'. Not only is it an insulting term for everyone else, but it is also a very bad term to describe these people. A better phrase would be 'nth order regurgitator'.
+<!--more-->
+## what is thought leadership
+There have always been people with public appeal and a big following, and in business it is often the case that people will try to find shortcuts to success. Rather than go through the arduous process of studying, learning and understanding, in order to have the extremely unpopular trait of one's own opinion, it is much easier to commit the fallacy of appealing to an authority, absorbing surface level information, and regurgitating opinions.
+
+It's not hard to see why this is the case, especially in industry; learning from scratch is not a guaranteed return on investment, especially if you need to invest a significant amount of time or money to get a good grasp on a specific field or sub-field. Regurgitation is a much safer and low-effort alternative behaviour that can still get you a solid 10% of the way to understanding what's actually going on.
+
+At the same time, people who, supposedly, are experts in their area, enjoy being recognised for their contributions, their efforts on their industry, and they feel like they have gathered insights to share and help others.
+
+## orders of regurgitation
+In my experience on social media, specifically LinkedIn and X/BlueSky, there are two main ways to create and regurgitate content.
+
+The first, the zero order regurgitation (gurgitation?), is the primary sources. These gurgitators often are acknowledged scientists or accomplished businessmen that have a track record of providing value, originally to their customers, but possibly also to shareholders, owners, or even to no one at all[^1].
+
+The second, the first order regurgitation, is about taking in the talking points and ideas of the gurgitators and present their own interpretation of the primary source, while at the same time managing to remove most of the actual knowledge, since it is something that they themselves do not understand most of the time[^2].
+
+## my gripes with the state of things
+There are many issues that I and others have with the status quo.
+
+Personally the main ones are, in order of number of characters for a waterfall effect (aesthetic ordering):
+
+- Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy
+- Regurgitators assume a role of moral authority
+- Personal relations and marketing is not actual insight
+- The use of the word 'leadership' implies a social dynamic
+
+### appeal to authority is a logical fallacy
+It is often the case in fields outside of hard science (and to some extent in the hard sciences also) that the name of the people or organization that present an idea or product are tied to the idea or product itself. This creates a situation where the opinion of these people is perceived to carry more weight, which can be (and oftentimes is) used and abused to present favourable information as factual, irregardless of the actual truth. Even if it is the actual factual truth, the very fact that it is presented after it has been regurgitated detracts from it. It is not yours, you didn't have to think it through, you didn't see the subtleties, you merely read about it. 
+
+You can maybe make it yours if you contemplate it, but that's a different discussion for a different mood.
+
+In any case, reliance on authority figures is long known to be a logical fallacy[^3].
+
+### regurgitators assume a role of moral authority
+As regurgitators grow an audience, they feel like they have an obligation to provide moral guidance to the people that listen to them, and try to provide moral guidance. This is stupid. In truth moral authority is given, not taken, and nobody gave the regurgitators the authority to discuss moral matters. Stop trying to tell me how to behave. It's embarrassing.
+
+### personal relations and marketing is not actual insight
+Other terms used for this type of work, such a "content creator" are upfront that there is no benign purpose. "Thought leadership" however implies that the regurgitator is a benign leader, who does this out of the good of their hearts, in a selfless manner. In truth, most of the time it has the opposite intent, and the regurgitators use the persona of kindness to promote their own products and ideas, or those of their friends, or those who pay them.
+
+### the use of the word 'leadership' implies a social dynamic
+The most egregious issue of the term "thought leader" has to do with the presumed "authority". Apart from the fact that appeal to authority is a fallacy, the assumption of the term "thought leader" by the regurgitators, or their "followers" showcases a very annoying public perception. When a person or entity has the label "leader", it is implied that they are guides, who take away part of your freedom in exchange for knowledge or wisdom. This subtly removes the responsibility of the individual to form their own opinions and atrophies the capacity of the brain to critically assess information[^4]. Don't you dare tell me what I should be thinking about. Regurgitators are at best equivalent to a court jesters. Everyone listens to them because they are there, but unfortunately, people forget they are meant to entertain and offer zero insight.
+
+[^1]: This means that they originally provided value, but are now using their fame and public goodwill to propagate their ideas.
+
+[^2]: There are also second, third, ..., n-th tier of regurgitation, but these are just (n-1) first order regurgitations; the regurgitators just chew, swallow, and then spew back even less useful information.
+
+[^3]: "urm ☝️🤓 ackhtually, by expecting the reader to believe you, you are presenting yourself as an authority. Is it not the case that this is also a logical fallacy?" [Yes it is](https://keimena.aethrvmn.gr/books/metafysika/on-logic/fallacies). Will you trust the person telling you to trust them, or the person who tells you to trust yourself?
+
+[^4]: I am aware this has been a problem throughout the years (the term "influencer" has the same connotations).