Earlier quoted context omitted.
The converse view is that problem solvers emerge because we keep making dire predictions. The best way to motivate people (especially bright people) is to convince them their work has higher meaning. If a problem being solved isn't high-stakes, you won't have the best and brightest working on it. They are going to go work on something that is actually high-stakes, high-impact. The post-WW2 nuclear threat was real. It…
Geniuses don't need the masses to advise them what matters. They can figure it out for themselves and are frequently ignored for long periods. Einstein worked in a patent office for years, unable to get the university job he longed for. It took two tries of photographing a solar eclipse to finally get proof of his theory and once proof existed, he was world famous overnight. He didn't stick with it because the masses…
Haranguing masses can decide what gets funded. Einstein's research didn't need much money, which worked out well for him. What if his genius had been in something that required more capital?