"stupid people are in charge" is technically correct but misleading.
The idea that really smart people could lead better than the average man has been around at least since Plato. All it takes to cure somebody of this is a good look at places where really smart people were in charge.
There is more to solving political problems than intelligence.
The issue isn't that the average man is dumb, it's that people who are highly motivated and don't think through their positions are more effective in democracies than less motivated, more educated voters.
This was interesting, and I hate to say anything bad about Chris. But I got a whiff that being smart and having a bad academic experience left some emotional marks on him. So the answers for him involve, not surprisingly, smart people outside of academia.
It's a shame, because I think he's on to something with his description of academia getting in the way of true breakout thinking.
More importantly, where were really smart non-psychopathic people in charge? Psychopaths crave power, and intelligence allows them to get it. Smart people in general (and especially the smartest of the smart) tend to dislike any authority in their lives, even the kind wielded by them.
This poor dude is actually a case in point. He could not even allow himself the small bit of authority needed to stand up for himself and not get kicked out of college. I imagine that to him, working with shitkickers is a bit like working with plants.
US Department of Defense, 2001 – 2006. Donald Rumsfeld's writings show he is clearly quite intelligent, yet he still managed to make numerous disastrous mistakes.
I believe the scope of than answer is greater than a HN thread, but I might just be wussing out. Hopefully others will engage you. If not, happy to take it offline.
I will say this: be careful of selection bias! Looking back, sure, if I show you a thousand examples that ended poorly your response will be something like "But they weren't really smart. Look how poorly it all turned out!" This is, at best, circular reasoning. The important thing is that, at the time, these folks were the best and brightest and put in charge for that very reason.
Will do. Perhaps I can set this up as a blog entry and then cross-post.
The problem, I think, is to keep this non-political. Somebody brought up the Rumsfield example, which I think is a good one. I also think McNamarra is another good example. The problem is that decisions that are very visible and make a big impact can also politically-charged. I think using a couple of SecDefs is okay, but I'm not sure.
I'm not sure there is much reason to think an alternative to academia wouldn't turn into the same thing. Do you have any reason to think that a new culture would somehow break through human nature?
Comments
"we need an alternative to academia" is correct
"stupid people are in charge" is technically correct but misleading.
The idea that really smart people could lead better than the average man has been around at least since Plato. All it takes to cure somebody of this is a good look at places where really smart people were in charge.
There is more to solving political problems than intelligence.
The issue isn't that the average man is dumb, it's that people who are highly motivated and don't think through their positions are more effective in democracies than less motivated, more educated voters.
This was interesting, and I hate to say anything bad about Chris. But I got a whiff that being smart and having a bad academic experience left some emotional marks on him. So the answers for him involve, not surprisingly, smart people outside of academia.
It's a shame, because I think he's on to something with his description of academia getting in the way of true breakout thinking.
Where were really smart people in charge?
More importantly, where were really smart non-psychopathic people in charge? Psychopaths crave power, and intelligence allows them to get it. Smart people in general (and especially the smartest of the smart) tend to dislike any authority in their lives, even the kind wielded by them.
This poor dude is actually a case in point. He could not even allow himself the small bit of authority needed to stand up for himself and not get kicked out of college. I imagine that to him, working with shitkickers is a bit like working with plants.
US Department of Defense, 2001 – 2006. Donald Rumsfeld's writings show he is clearly quite intelligent, yet he still managed to make numerous disastrous mistakes.
I believe the scope of than answer is greater than a HN thread, but I might just be wussing out. Hopefully others will engage you. If not, happy to take it offline.
I will say this: be careful of selection bias! Looking back, sure, if I show you a thousand examples that ended poorly your response will be something like "But they weren't really smart. Look how poorly it all turned out!" This is, at best, circular reasoning. The important thing is that, at the time, these folks were the best and brightest and put in charge for that very reason.
Good starting point: http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Failure-Recognizing-Avoiding-Sit...
I'd like to know also. Can you start new topic on HN perhaps?
Will do. Perhaps I can set this up as a blog entry and then cross-post.
The problem, I think, is to keep this non-political. Somebody brought up the Rumsfield example, which I think is a good one. I also think McNamarra is another good example. The problem is that decisions that are very visible and make a big impact can also politically-charged. I think using a couple of SecDefs is okay, but I'm not sure.
I'm not sure there is much reason to think an alternative to academia wouldn't turn into the same thing. Do you have any reason to think that a new culture would somehow break through human nature?