The Social Function of Elite Universities https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/the-social-function-of-elite-universities/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 23:09:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266507090702499841
The Social Function of Elite Universities https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/the-social-function-of-elite-universities/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 23:09:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266507090702499841
Feb 28, 2020, 10:07 AM Elite universities open the door to cushier jobs – meaning they don’t have to work with commoners – without having to compete in the ‘real’ market. Top universities are, to some degree, a test of character – which is why governments prefer to hire from them when possible. Not because people are more capable, but because they are less likely to take risks that would jeopardize their investments in their privileged and high status positions. This strategy has worked in china and in europe. It has worked less well in the USA for reasons well understood. Creative, innovative, high agency, high risk takers are not suitable for the top universities and the ‘academic grind’. This is the hard wall that I didn’t hit, but Taleb did. It’s why he went off the deep end. Its because it turns out that there is a very good reason those people from good schools get those jobs and more ‘dynamic’ people don’t. Because the more responsibility the higher the risk to those one is responsible to. And europeans do not seize non-productive opportunities. There are opportunities for profit that men of character do not seize because they are unproductive. Taleb did. So did Soros. And Bernie Madoff’s don’t go to Harvard or Yale.
Feb 28, 2020, 10:07 AM Elite universities open the door to cushier jobs – meaning they don’t have to work with commoners – without having to compete in the ‘real’ market. Top universities are, to some degree, a test of character – which is why governments prefer to hire from them when possible. Not because people are more capable, but because they are less likely to take risks that would jeopardize their investments in their privileged and high status positions. This strategy has worked in china and in europe. It has worked less well in the USA for reasons well understood. Creative, innovative, high agency, high risk takers are not suitable for the top universities and the ‘academic grind’. This is the hard wall that I didn’t hit, but Taleb did. It’s why he went off the deep end. Its because it turns out that there is a very good reason those people from good schools get those jobs and more ‘dynamic’ people don’t. Because the more responsibility the higher the risk to those one is responsible to. And europeans do not seize non-productive opportunities. There are opportunities for profit that men of character do not seize because they are unproductive. Taleb did. So did Soros. And Bernie Madoff’s don’t go to Harvard or Yale.
Leftism = Cancer https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/leftism-cancer/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 23:04:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266505734910509058
Feb 28, 2020, 10:27 AM
The Left: “Individualism”: Maximum Generational Consumption.
The Right: “Familism”: Maximum Intergenerational Production.
The Left, quite literally, replicates biological cancer in informational, social, political, and civilizational cancer.
Be the cure.
Feb 28, 2020, 10:27 AM
The Left: “Individualism”: Maximum Generational Consumption.
The Right: “Familism”: Maximum Intergenerational Production.
The Left, quite literally, replicates biological cancer in informational, social, political, and civilizational cancer.
Be the cure.
Eric Danelaw shared a link. Mar 2, 2020, 12:14 PM Class: The Little Word the Elites Want You to Forget, from truthdig.comTHE LAW OF THE CYCLES OF POLITICAL ORDERS (thanks for the invite to comment) Organizations evolve to exploit an opportunity that can only be exploited by organizations. The organizational myth, history, tradition, rules, methods of description, persuasion, and argument expand until all available opportunity, rents, extractions, and predations under it are exhausted and all incentives to persist the organization are exhausted by enough of the population that they are incentivized to seek other opportunities. At that point in the shift of incentives, the opportunity that evolves is radical extra-political reorganization of capital, elites, and institutions, to eliminate the accumulated, rents, extractions, and predations so that incentive to persist organization of the polity, society, community, is restored. This reorganization can consist of three possibilities, including i) retention of strategy but redistribution of capital and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of law), ii) rotation of strategy, elites, and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of legislation), or iii) replacement of strategy, elites, institutions altogether (best if under tyranny). For example Picketty is right in some sense, but it turns out that the aristocracies were actually better than we thought because they had Hoppeian incentives to avoid the tragedy of the commons, and to persist the polity and society while continuously reorganizing the institutions and elites. This is why we ( or at least I) have recommended (in the new constitutional amendments) capital reallocation, institutional reformation, and a shift back to intergenerational elites, on a scale not seen since the roman reforms. We don’t do things too badly. But our 20th century experiments in variations on the ancient tripartite order under rule of law largely didn’t work. There is a reason we evolved so quickly compared to other civilizations despite the dark ages. We already invented perfect government. We just didn’t adapt it correctly in response to the industrial revolution. Because we didn’t understand why we’d been successful. Now we do. Cheers.
Eric Danelaw shared a link. Mar 2, 2020, 12:14 PM Class: The Little Word the Elites Want You to Forget, from truthdig.comTHE LAW OF THE CYCLES OF POLITICAL ORDERS (thanks for the invite to comment) Organizations evolve to exploit an opportunity that can only be exploited by organizations. The organizational myth, history, tradition, rules, methods of description, persuasion, and argument expand until all available opportunity, rents, extractions, and predations under it are exhausted and all incentives to persist the organization are exhausted by enough of the population that they are incentivized to seek other opportunities. At that point in the shift of incentives, the opportunity that evolves is radical extra-political reorganization of capital, elites, and institutions, to eliminate the accumulated, rents, extractions, and predations so that incentive to persist organization of the polity, society, community, is restored. This reorganization can consist of three possibilities, including i) retention of strategy but redistribution of capital and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of law), ii) rotation of strategy, elites, and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of legislation), or iii) replacement of strategy, elites, institutions altogether (best if under tyranny). For example Picketty is right in some sense, but it turns out that the aristocracies were actually better than we thought because they had Hoppeian incentives to avoid the tragedy of the commons, and to persist the polity and society while continuously reorganizing the institutions and elites. This is why we ( or at least I) have recommended (in the new constitutional amendments) capital reallocation, institutional reformation, and a shift back to intergenerational elites, on a scale not seen since the roman reforms. We don’t do things too badly. But our 20th century experiments in variations on the ancient tripartite order under rule of law largely didn’t work. There is a reason we evolved so quickly compared to other civilizations despite the dark ages. We already invented perfect government. We just didn’t adapt it correctly in response to the industrial revolution. Because we didn’t understand why we’d been successful. Now we do. Cheers.
What World-Intellectual Elites Exist? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/what-world-intellectual-elites-exist/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 21:11:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266477276306300929
Mar 2, 2020, 3:55 PM
1. European Aristotelian Masculine 2. Ashkenazi Jewish Abrahamic Feminine 3. The Chinese Act rather than Talk, they don’t create universals, the run their civilization out of self interest. Confucianism isn’t argumentative or combative like scientific truth or abrahamic undermining. 4. If India has intellectual elites they’re invisible to us primarily because they are concentrating as are the Chinese on their own. 5. There are no islamic intellectual elites because it’s an anti intellectual civilization in the sense we meant it as innovative. (open to criticism on this)