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

The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

deadcarl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 86 posts

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#41

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

hdhx8 wrote: post #38
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #27

Reminds me a quote I heard recently about wealth inequality and how the very rich can do dumb things without consequences (to them anyway) and it was along the lines of 'we don't have a merit-based system, because our system does not need merit to function'.

More useful less cynical frame is the Theory of Bounded Rationality which tell us everything has limits. Merit included.

I mean, yes everything has limits. I think the point is that the limit for how much merit is required for our system to run is much much lower then people would intuitively expect. Which is why its surprising when we see very clearly incompetent people thriving at the same time other very clearly competent and talented people are struggling, and wondering how that could possibly happen.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#42

Post by [deleted] »

hdhx8 wrote: post #38
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #27

Reminds me a quote I heard recently about wealth inequality and how the very rich can do dumb things without consequences (to them anyway) and it was along the lines of 'we don't have a merit-based system, because our system does not need merit to function'.

More useful less cynical frame is the Theory of Bounded Rationality which tell us everything has limits. Merit included.

[deleted]

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#43

Post by inglor_cz »

Joker_vD wrote: post #32
matusp wrote: post #8

Of course mediocre and bad leaders make their mark on history. But Carlyle's Great Men theory is more about paradigm shifts that Great Men can will into existence, not just random noise they bring along. The problem with GM theory is that there is only a handful of examples to support it. Napoleon is one such example, and it was undoubtedly the inspiration why the theory was proposed in the first place. People were t…

The historical setting at the moment of time matters a lot. Had the French Revolution not happened, he would've been yet another artillery lieutenant in the French army. In 1789 Jean Lannes was a dyer, Laurent de Gouvion Saint-Cyr was a paineter, Jean-Baptiste Jourdan worked in a clothing store, Jean-Baptiste Bessières was a barber, Guillaume Marie Anne Brune was a typesetter, Jean-Baptiste Kléber was an architect...…

The same is happening in Ukraine right now.

Prior to the war, Robert Brovdi (Magyar) was a local businessman on a periphery of Ukraine. Now he is a commander of probably the strongest drone force in the world.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#44

Post by inglor_cz »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #40
nixon_why69 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short order after 500 years? You're not wrong about his qualities but he was still the guy who did it first, and it's still called the Columbian exchange.

When I was young Columbus was lionized in schools. Now young people I talk to demonize him more and more. He wasn't even first (Viking explorers beat him there by a lot), he was just first to brutally exploit. I'm sure the things that are named after him will be renamed eventually to honor more deserving figures.

That is a very US-ian perspective. AFAIK he is still lionized in Latin America, and likely will continue to be, as he is a sorta-kinda the ur-founder of all those nations.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#45

Post by bee_rider »

jleyank wrote: post #17
smitty1e wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"as su," indicates a lack of editing.

LLM? Any verbose, struggling to focus article now looks generated rather than the work of somebody with better ideas than technique. Or they’re being paid by the word. I wonder whether there is a jargon problem with the word “great”…. These’s no way Trump or Cameron would be considered “great” but the world changed through their direct actions. One could argue that they just happen to be there when underlying forces…

FWIW it is from 2024. LLM tells evolve quickly, so you’d want to be looking for the ones of that timeframe.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#46

Post by xtiansimon »

rbanffy wrote: post #18
Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #11

You could fit in most senior directors, consultants and sales VPs into that bucket comfortably.

Organisations have evolved to deal with them. In fact, all the rules and procedures, checks and compliance procedures are there precisely to allow the organisation to survive despite its members.

What new concept evolves society the mental-immunity necessary to survive these radically destructive _ideas_? (Ie. corporations are people)

If revolution is the old answer to oppressive organizations together with its tragic loss of life, then… where’s our cure for cancer?

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#47

Post by inglor_cz »

When thinking about this from the perspective of rulers and war, Putin is the ultimate mediocre man of our times. He wanted to be the next Great Tsar - Expander of the Realm, forever mentioned in history textbook as the one who put the Russian World together again after Gorbachev let it collapse.

But career spooks like him and his inner silovik circe don't really understand war and, at the same time, don't trust the army enough to actually build it up to strength. And so he started something that he cannot finish.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#48

Post by Spooky23 »

rbanffy wrote: post #14

When you look at white noise from up close, you see dramatic changes, periods of calm, and what seems like patterns. Only when you step back, you realise all that drama you read is mostly inconsequential. What will be the impact of Napoleon 1000 years from now? Of Columbus? If instead of Hitler Germany had Rohm? It’s all monkeys and typewriters all the way down. What matters are the structural forces, the natural res…

They both matter. All of the typewriters in the world doesn’t produce a play until you find the right monkey.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#49

Post by nephihaha »

bsenftner wrote: post #23
_dain_ wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still speak today of Charlemagne, Muhammed, Caesar, Alexander. Napoleon and Columbus have secured for themselves their seats in the pantheon of history and it will take longer than a thousand years for mankind to forget about them. All these men built our world.

Na, all it will take is a shift in perspective. As humanity becomes more and more Asian, those names will trigger a "who?"

Mohammed was Asian. Julius Caesar had huge bits of his Empire in Asia. Most of Alexander the Great's empire was in Asia.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#50

Post by jocaal »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #41
hdhx8 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More useful less cynical frame is the Theory of Bounded Rationality which tell us everything has limits. Merit included.

I mean, yes everything has limits. I think the point is that the limit for how much merit is required for our system to run is much much lower then people would intuitively expect. Which is why its surprising when we see very clearly incompetent people thriving at the same time other very clearly competent and talented people are struggling, and wondering how that could possibly happen.

The system is too big and complex for there to be a notion such as merit. We are animals and just like all animals we must fight to survive. Some people get lucky, some get unlucky. Merit is irrelevant.

And if you try to create a merit based system, you take away the liberties of the people. Who decides what person deserves more than another? You will create a system ripe for corruption.

Post reply on HN