Against Modesty’s Bailey

Substack · Watch/Read · (gathered 2026-08-29)

• Zvi Mowshowitz argues “Against Modesty’s Bailey,” rejecting the notion that one must defer to expert consensus or others’ views unless possessing unique information, as doing so is often conflated with claiming superior status or intelligence.
• The piece distinguishes between “Modesty’s Motte” (treating others’ opinions as Bayesian evidence, which is affirmed) and “Modesty’s Bailey” (the obligation to defer to consensus, which is rejected), highlighting how social pressures often enforce the latter.
• A key concept is that “Wrong, Stupid, and Low Status are Three Distinct Things,” a distinction often blurred in social contexts like academia or Effective Altruism, where disagreeing with high-status individuals is incorrectly perceived as calling them stupid.
• Once you have invested sufficient attention and understanding into a topic, you have the right and moral duty to substitute your own judgment for that of experts or consensus, evaluating arguments directly rather than deferring to authority, even if they are smarter or more credentialed.