Separate reasoning from credentials

When someone shares expertise or makes a recommendation, separate your evaluation of their reasoning from your evaluation of their credentials by asking 'Would I find this compelling if it came from a low-status source?'

When This Fires

When evaluating advice, recommendations, or arguments from high-status sources
When you feel compelled to accept a conclusion because of who said it rather than why they said it
When multiple experts disagree (When credentialed experts contradict each other, treat…, Ask 'why do these experts disagree' not 'who is right'…) and you need to evaluate reasoning rather than pick by credentials
When consuming content from influential thought leaders, bestselling authors, or prestigious institutions

Common Failure Mode

Authority-laundered poor reasoning: accepting weak arguments because the source is impressive. "This CEO says we should move fast and break things" sounds visionary from a billionaire founder and reckless from an unknown startup founder — but the quality of the strategy advice is the same regardless of who said it. Evaluate the strategy, not the source's net worth.

The Protocol

(1) When someone makes a recommendation or shares an argument, notice the source's status: are they high-credentials, famous, or institutionally prestigious? (2) If yes → apply the counterfactual: "If an unknown person with no special credentials made this exact same argument with this exact same evidence, would I find it compelling?" (3) If the argument is compelling regardless of source → the reasoning stands on its own merits. Accept it based on the reasoning. (4) If the argument is only compelling because of who said it → the reasoning is weak and you're deferring to authority. Investigate the reasoning independently before accepting. (5) Note: this also works in reverse. Apply "Would I dismiss this if it came from a high-status source?" to arguments from low-status sources to catch reverse authority bias.