Why many "intellectuals" become complete idiots

Intetesting. I think there’s also a converse reaction - non-intellectuals thinking they’re smarter than they really are. The internet has completely skewed reality.

I recommend the book “Range.”

Specialists often become impressed with their knowledge in one area.

As the book, “Range,” shows, a group of generalists can easily outperform specialists in solving problems and making future predictions.

We exalt the opinions of specialists even in areas in which they aren’t specialists (see Bill Gates and diseases).

quote:

---

They ultimately begin treating their model as infallible gospel rather than an obviously incomplete, imperfect interpretation of something.

---

All models are wrong, some models are useful.

quote:

---

The cliff notes: Intellectuals become obsessed with abstractions and models of how they believe things work. They ultimately begin treating their model as infallible gospel rather than an obviously incomplete, imperfect interpretation of something. When reality collides with or invalidates their models, they defend the models.

---

Also, we’re at a spot in human knowledge and advancement where being a renaissance man is not feasible for academics. Research academics usually end up developing very deep but narrow knowledge in niche domains. I’ve seen computer science professors who cannot actually use a computer. They just know math.

It’s a tough problem. It takes so much prior knowledge to find the new horizons that we need specialists to continue the pursuit for more knowledge. However these specialists are apt to have major blind spots.

quote:

---

Now which group has ushered in more progress while at the helm?

---

I suppose it depends on how you define “progress.” Both parties claim to champion “the people” but meanwhile the middle class gets smaller and smaller. I suspect it’s because each side seems obsessed with beating the other side - which doesn’t necessarily benefit the general populace, only certain interests.

quote:

---

converse

---

yeah, here's the thing milt the word you're looking for there is "inverse" but who am i to question an "intellectual" !

quote:

---

"Converse" was actually more apropos.

---

How?

quote:

---

Now which group has ushered in more progress while at the helm?

---

Which group is responsible for Covid?

Which groups is responsible for the crash of 2008?

Which groups is responsible for 9/11?

Which group is responsible for the Iraq War?

Find an absolute tragedy in the last 40 years and you’ll have the Quants or their analog sitting in the middle of the decision making process.

You’re making a political post and coming off as typically stupid as you usually do trying to score a point. Not realizing you just emphasized the point you were trying to knock down.

quote:

---

Also, we’re at a spot in human knowledge and advancement where being a renaissance man is not feasible for academics.

---

That’s only true if you don’t believe in free will.

This is like saying “my kid can’t play multiple sports or he won’t make travel ball.”

It’s a very short-sighted view of being an academic. It assumes the end goal of academia is not knowledge, discovery and advancement of thought. And is instead about fellowships, chairs, fame and position. Which is appropriate. Because that’s what it has become.

And it has made our journals for absolute shite.

Education without experiences is a contributing factor.

I read it.
Never lived in the real world on the shop floor.

Then you put too many thinkers in a room without any doers and you end up with an amplification of idiocy.
Nothing to stop it or course correct it.

I was in a meeting this week when such a thing happened.
There was a flaw in some of the execution by the higher ups and as I questioned it, I was interrupted to reexplain to me what I already understood.
I politely said “I’m not confused” and continued my comments.

Too much of that and you end up with dumb smart people.