Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 292 posts

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#31

Post by dalbasal »

lwneal wrote: post #20

In Peter Turchin's book War and Peace and War [1], the term "elite overproduction" does not refer to an overproduction of smart people, education, or college degrees. Instead, it refers to an overproduction of nobility , individuals who extract income but who do not perform useful work. For example, France during the population boom of the high middle ages overproduced knights and minor nobles from 1200-1300. The nob…

Good context. Thanks for that.

Finding modern cognates to medieval nobility is fraught. In the republican era, it basically means "finger the bad guys." There's a tendency to label whoever you have beef with. Investors, bankers, the wealthy, political elites, the upper class...

Does Peace and War go into inter-nobility issues, or does the thesis rest on just the problem of a fixed size peasantry supporting a growing nobility? I could imagine these issues resulting in famines and peasant revolts. But, I can also imagine conflict emerging among nobility.

You can confer as many titles as you like, but France only has so many hides of land. Landless knights and penniless descendants of counts hanging around palaces and competing viciously for favour seems like it could be a recipe too. Somewhat more parsimonious with this modern thesis.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#32

Post by paulryanrogers »

powerapple wrote: post #27
dusted wrote: post #22

Stupid people who think they're smart because they have a fancy education and are rewarded with high salary, that's probably a dangerous "brainy elite". Along with stupid people who just so happened to get a ton of money by no merit of their own, but don't realize this.

if a person wanted to accumulate wealth/knowledge and did it, he/she is smart. if a person wanted to accumulate wealth/knowledge and failed to so do, he/she is stupid.

This assumes equality of opportunity.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#33

Post by xenocratus »

ploika wrote: post #30
powerapple wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if a person wanted to accumulate wealth/knowledge and did it, he/she is smart. if a person wanted to accumulate wealth/knowledge and failed to so do, he/she is stupid.

Trying and failing doesn't make you stupid.

It does in a lot of courts of public opinion, unfortunately.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#34

Post by deathhand »

lwneal wrote: post #20

In Peter Turchin's book War and Peace and War [1], the term "elite overproduction" does not refer to an overproduction of smart people, education, or college degrees. Instead, it refers to an overproduction of nobility , individuals who extract income but who do not perform useful work. For example, France during the population boom of the high middle ages overproduced knights and minor nobles from 1200-1300. The nob…

To distill the thought further: Rent seeking behavior in non-scaleable.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#35

Post by emailrhoads »

Taleb writes about this with the phrase IYI intellectual yet idiot.

His primary concern is that these people don't take risk and become bureaucrats. Not that they are smart, brainy, or any other ad hominem attack masked as a compliment.

https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e...

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#36

Post by throwaway0a5e »

lwneal wrote: post #20

In Peter Turchin's book War and Peace and War [1], the term "elite overproduction" does not refer to an overproduction of smart people, education, or college degrees. Instead, it refers to an overproduction of nobility , individuals who extract income but who do not perform useful work. For example, France during the population boom of the high middle ages overproduced knights and minor nobles from 1200-1300. The nob…

>The most straightforward modern equivalent to Turchin's "elite" nobility would not be people with advanced degrees: it would be

There's a lot of groups one could complain about. On HN it's a toss-up between whether you complain about the wall street bankers or the urban landlords. In other circles people complain about the government and the white collar yuppies. The MBA types get complained about a lot but nobody complains when they're buying a $100 window A/C unit.

You can find examples of net-negative rent seeking in just about every part of the economy but to paint a whole class of economic activity as a drag is naive.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#37

Post by paulryanrogers »

jmeister wrote: post #16
roenxi wrote: post #12

The idea that there is some sort of magic cycle that links 1870s to 2020 is patent nonsense. No cycle could survive the technological and political disruptions of the last hundred years. The current problem is the same old one where available real resources are growing more slowly than the population. If real stuff is becoming available faster than the population, we have golden ages. When population grows faster tha…

Malthusian arguments are outdated by atleast a 100 years. Where is the proof that “real stuff” is growing slower than the population? Seems like there is too much stuff TBH. And banker-scapegoating is also outdated by ~10 years. The regulations passed after ‘08 have made banks boring and powerless. The focus should be on the tech industry.

Physics has hard limits. Malthus didn't make a perfectly accurate prediction. That doesn't mean it's wise to rely on unpredictable breakthroughs to finance unsustainable lifestyles.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#38

Post by Haul4ss »

slfnflctd wrote: post #29

I'm not sure how brainy I am. Perhaps the main reason I came across that way in school is because my mom taught me to read early. In any case, no one in the lower-end workplace has been particularly interested in what brains I do have, or (apparently) anyone else's around me. It's all about how you can fit into the local pattern, which is often suboptimal yet resistant to change. Meanwhile, everything interesting/cha…

> Meanwhile, everything interesting/challenging I might have liked to work on is already being worked on by someone else, who is probably doing a better job than I would have

You may be surprised to learn how false and limiting this belief is. Turns out most of those people are also just winging it, so if you wing it too, hey, you may actually reach a better outcome.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#39

Post by rjsw »

dalbasal wrote: post #31
lwneal wrote: post #20

In Peter Turchin's book War and Peace and War [1], the term "elite overproduction" does not refer to an overproduction of smart people, education, or college degrees. Instead, it refers to an overproduction of nobility , individuals who extract income but who do not perform useful work. For example, France during the population boom of the high middle ages overproduced knights and minor nobles from 1200-1300. The nob…

Good context. Thanks for that. Finding modern cognates to medieval nobility is fraught. In the republican era, it basically means "finger the bad guys." There's a tendency to label whoever you have beef with. Investors, bankers, the wealthy, political elites, the upper class... Does Peace and War go into inter-nobility issues, or does the thesis rest on just the problem of a fixed size peasantry supporting a growing…

Spain fixed the problem of too many landless knights by encouraging them to go off and invade South America.

Re: Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

#40

Post by est31 »

lwneal wrote: post #20

In Peter Turchin's book War and Peace and War [1], the term "elite overproduction" does not refer to an overproduction of smart people, education, or college degrees. Instead, it refers to an overproduction of nobility , individuals who extract income but who do not perform useful work. For example, France during the population boom of the high middle ages overproduced knights and minor nobles from 1200-1300. The nob…

> The most straightforward modern equivalent to Turchin's "elite" nobility would not be people with advanced degrees: it would be investors who do not work for wages. (Not to say there is no overlap between those groups.)

Investors do a lot of work, because they have to constantly think where to put their money, evaluate alternatives, make sure there is no money wasted on things, etc. Even passive investors who only have S&P portfolios still contribute to the economy by providing capital to companies to invest into new things.

Post reply on HN