> Marc: I think there’s a real argument, and this is the most uncomfortable form of argument, there is a real argument that there are just a certain number of super-elite people.
I really enjoy it when people say exactly what they think.
I really enjoy it when people say exactly what they think.
If they got lucky, it was because they were "super-elite." No one's going to win a nurture-or-nature argument but there's a clear self-interest in these situations to call nature what was, at least in part, nurture.
It's like talking about how there are "just a certain number of super-elite" players of pickle ball. It's conflating datasets of those who have been given access to the entire spectrum of attributes necessary to know and be good at pickle ball, with the vast seas of those who haven't. How can you say it's rare based on such a small data sample? If you were a pickle ball champion, would you really brag about how, "Let's face it, there are only a couple of us; we're just that good."
But if you're unfamiliar with the hubris and elitism that runs wildly unfettered in the Bay Area -- well, lucky you.
No he’s not. He’s talking about scientists. You are putting words in his mouth.
The only way the statement could be false would be for everyone to be at the same level of skill/knowledge/aptitude/etc. but there's clearly some non-uniform distribution and regardless of where you draw the line to define super-elite, some people will fall in that group.
But he doesn't present much evidence for this beyond a speculative "If someone’s truly a member of the elite, are able to generate elite-level results, if you wanted to demotivate them and draw them out of the field, what would you do? You would surround them with mediocrity and drown them in bullshit" that's extrapolated from what the founders he's talking to are telling him.
One potential blind spot seems to be "maybe weeding through tedium is a good quality in many researchers, since much of research is more tedious than founding a startup." After all, he's basing this on talking to people who left the system, not talking to today's top researchers.
I think a bigger one is that he says even in his system, most (50%+) of the companies he funds fail to do anything interesting. So this is still, from the same sort of standard of efficiency applied to researchers here, woefully wasteful.
I'm also not really clear on how he thinks it should be changed.
"Imagine you're an expert in only one thing and it's computer programming. Books are a waste of time except as quick references; you can achieve full expertise just by teaching yourself through internet searches, discussion forums, and maybe the occasional blog post if you're really keen. When you have to solve a problem, you strip away as much of the context as possible, until you can isolate it down to a single phrase of logic. As soon as you solve that one isolated microproblem, the results blow up exponentially to satisfy all kinds of needs and desires you haven't even thought of.
Now imagine that even though you're doing journeyman skilled labor like a plumber or electrician (except it doesn't even require professional certification), you earn a salary well into the six figures - or even equity that grows to the millions or billions - in a Wall Street-like testosterone bubble where you and your colleagues unabashedly believe you're the smartest people in the room, the beneficiaries of a pure meritocracy, and you're Changing The World as much as you can when unimpeded by the hordes of fuzzies who just don't know how to think.
Of course you come to believe that anyone who claims to be a credentialed expert, and says this or that issue is actually much more complicated and contextual than you appreciate, is probably just a big faker whose whole field of study could be solved elegantly if a smart person like you just spent some hobby time stripping away the context to isolate that one neat trick of logic."
Not sure who wrote this originally found it here - https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/i7a24j/tech_brai...
It’s myopic to judge the tech world around mobile apps instead of the decades long capitalizations that can bring mass market super computers into the palm of our hands.
Now compare that to the research interests over the same time-horizon. We still have psychology departments not educating basic cellular biology as a graduation requirement!