Cleverness is not Intelligence: 2
Let me start with a provocative question.
Would the sudden death of every person (and their descendants) who attended an ivy league university, or their equivalent in other countries, affect the pace of innovation negatively.
Many idiots believe that these institutions are bastions of free thought, innovation and progress. However in reality they represent and propagate the opposite, and are bastions of the status quo.
These institutions are the famous seminaries of our age, indoctrinating clever and connected people in their version of theology.
The performance of their students on any test of “IQ” or any other measure of cleverness is inconsequential precisely because they are defending the status quo. Their purported support for innovation, free thought and occasional sponsorship of rising radicals is simply window-dressing to convince gullible people that they are not seminaries.
Consider this.. is the quality or content on instruction in these universities different from other universities? So what makes their students special?
Paradoxically, what makes the students of “famous” universities different from other is not intelligence or even cleverness, but CONFORMITY. The willingness to suppress your beliefs, please others, jump through hoops created by others and sucking up are crucial to admission and success in these universities.
These institutions are selecting and training complaint and zealous “defenders of the faith and status quo”. Many innovators who started at ivy league institutions dropped out or had started their own gigs and went away from the ivy league mainstream before they finished. Why?
Why would those who support (and defend) the status quo want innovation, progress or improvement. These cocksuckers have a certainty about their worldview that is religious in nature. They look at challenges or efforts to question the status quo in the same light as inquisitors and witch-burners looked upon heretics and “witches”. Their authority derives from maintaining the status quo.
And many idiots still believe that these people are the “best and brightest”. By that definition, the priests and monks in the dark ages were also the “best and brightest” but they did not innovate a lot.. did they?
The “success”, status and wealth of such people is based on connections, cartels and fraud. But many idiots conflate that with ability, and then blame those without such networks for being undeserving.
These people are neither innovators nor wealth producers, they are rentiers.
But do you know the difference, or should I say- Do you want to know the difference?
The answer to your question is. it depends on the major. Also, please do not set up a false dichotomy: just because the Ivy Leagues are bastions of conformity, that doesn’t make their lower-tier competition bastions of free thought; on the contrary, it makes them bastions of conformity with a lower admission intelligence threshold.
—-
It does not work that way, in reality less “famous” places do indeed have more free thinkers.
And you are still conflating cleverness with intelligence.
Innovation requires a minimum of intelligence. But it also requires a serious ability to think outside the box.
By definition, students at ivy-league schools are usually conventional in the extreme. Real outside-the-box thinkers have a hard time with every conventional element in society.
And universities are just another conventional institution.
I think you mean compliant, not complaint. In any case, innovation is always the domain of entrepreneurs. Universities as a whole don’t teach entrepreneurial skills. Their mandate is to implant the current body of knowledge into their students and this they do very well. Once students have that foundation it is up to the individual to build on that further. Since when has any large group given rise to innovation? Why should universities be any different?
Q: What makes an institution ‘elite’?
A: How long it’s been around.
And while I can appreciate that staying power is a good indicator of vitality, it’s also a pretty big cause od stagnation.
—-
Like the catholic church?
Re: chrisis:
“innovation is always the domain of entrepreneurs”
NO. Many great innovative minds were non-entrepeneurs. Of the famous mathematicians and physicists, almost none were entrepeneurs.
“Their [universities'] mandate is to implant the current body of knowledge into their students and this they do very well.”
This statement betrays a complete misunderstanding of the university. The primary mandate of the university is to conduct original research. Teaching is just a side-thing. (Maybe you’re thinking of “community college”)
—
I know, but many people think like that.
I disagree with the generalisation. I had excellent classes and seminars in entrepreneurship, including how to get rid of biases and think outside the box.
They teach you how to think outside the box. But when the time comes to think outside the box, they oppose you and try to destroy you. Why? Because they know that if you start thinking outside the box, you will become better than them and you will threaten their position.
Teaching you how to think outside the box is different from thinking outside the box. Teaching the act is different from the act.
In modern days where science progresses exponentially due to thinking outside the box, professors who are really stagnant will oppose any progress because it threatens them.
Besides, the system is adversarial not cooperative. Most professors see their students as ennemies or as dumb persons.
Just try to think outside the box. And watch the result. Unless you have allies, you will lose.
Having spent time at a state school and in the Ivy League, I think that your view of these elite institutions is backward. I have no intention of defending them in any meaningful way, but you’ve got the mechanisms all wrong.
—-
Sophism alert!
For one, conformity is a side-effect, not a primary aim. Elite institutions are about status and status only. Every other endeavor, whether it’s research, philanthropy or education, are side-effects of status seeking.
—-
Ever wonder why china and india stagnated for 2,000 years.. ya.
Nobel prizes bring status, educating future Presidents brings status, educating future billionaires brings status and money, having large endowments brings status. And the primary aim of any high status person/institution is to maintain his high status, because status is in flux all the time. Today’s top dog has no guarantee that he will be tomorrow’s top dog. For a low to medium status person, there is always room to go up. But once you are at the top, there is no where to go but down and you try to avoid this at all costs. You are constantly aware of how vulnerable your high status is.
—–
Yes.. and how does this story end?
This is one point that few who have never been high status will understand.
—–
Ask the catholic church. They know a thing or two about that..
It’s hard to empathize with the guys at the top.
——
I am objective, unlike you.
It’s hard to muster any sympathy for those poor Ivy League students who must work day and night not to fall from the pinnacle of the status hierarchy. It’s hard to sympathize with the investment banker who works 100+ hours a week because he gets a million dollar bonus and goes home to a Park Avenue penthouse. But unless you understand the psychology, you are stuck with a poor model of how these people work to maintain their status and keep you down.
—–
Yes.. so why do they fuck up so badly. If they were competent, they would not require overt and covert bailouts, cartels and privileges.
So, if by status quo, you mean that the same people are high status and you’re stuck in the muck, then yes, these elite institutions care about that. But this is fairly disconnected from innovation and progress. Why? Well, first you need to accept a hard fact about innovation: the primary factor affecting success is luck. You can rationalize it to yourself that you have some special ability no one else has, but there’s no way around the luck factor.
—-
That is why converting people like you to fish food would be a net benefit to humans.
Big payouts are often winner take all contests (see Half Sigma’s blog for a great rundown of this; he talks a lot about status too).
—–
halfsShitma..
Which means that if 1000 people are working on a problem, the first one to solve it gets a huge payout and everyone else gets nothing, in addition to having wasted years of their lives. All 1000 are probably bright and talented, but luck plays a big part in who gets there first, even if others are close, and he gets the big payout and all the relevant status. So, the goal of being an innovator is a fairly risky one.
—–
and that is precisely why a winner-takes-all society ends in a disaster.
If you are the top dog, you main value will be risk aversion. And since actually trying to innovate is a sucker’s bet, you want to avoid that at all cost. Instead, you want to be in a position to capitalize on whomever does succeed. So, instead of taking that 1 in a 1000 chance to be an innovator, why not hire 1000 scientists to work for you and then claim part of the credit and payout when 1 of them succeeds? That’s a much less risky strategy.
—-
Ask the chinese and indians how risk aversion worked for them.. they have a couple of thousand years of experience in that.
In fact, elite institutions love anyone they think has a decent chance of being successful. Because of the way status-by-association works, if they get future winners to go to their school, then they get status as well. And they try to buy them off young, when they are impressionable. Welcome them into the club by offering them university spots and lavishing them with all these amenities, so that later on in life, they are nostalgic for that period in their life and give money back, or use their connections to help out the university.
—–
So they are seminaries.
So, now I can address your points about conformity. Conformity is about risk aversion and facilitating status-by-association. Why be a radical when the party line is all you need? No sense stirring up the pot unnecessarily; hence conformity. Also, these institutions need a way to maintain a relationship many years from now once you have become successful. Conformity facilitates relationships because it gives you common ground and the ability to establish a connection. Truth and justice are irrelevant when you need to establish common ground.
——-
Read some fucking history!
A final note. It’s often hard for people to think clearly about status, because it is intimately tied to our egos, our identities and our sense of self-worth. But you are better off accepting that status is real and will always be with us and that it is purely relative: for someone to be up, another must be down. Don’t accept that high status people are better than you, but don’t worry about making the argument either. Just work to improve your status. I believe that you should be a psychopath when it comes to relative goods and idealistic when it comes to absolute goods. Status is relative, scientific progress is absolute. You gain nothing by refusing to play the status game except frustration. So, pursue status without shame (but pretend not to because that would be low status). And convincing the plebes that status is unimportant/unjust/evil is one way the high status maintain their position, because then no one is thinking about how to unseat them.
——
Give the catholic church some credit if you are using their playbook.
So what’s the point of the whole status thing? Why does a society needs status except maybe for two things: governors and governed. There were times when there was a limited number of positions: the king, the priest, and the people. Now we have thousands of positions where each thinks he is an absolute lord in his domain. This is another version of the European feudalism. It seems that this is typical to “whites” (i.e. all the Germanic tribes: Angles, Saxons, Francs, Alamans, Norsemen and the rest).
It’s part of human nature. It doesn’t have to have a point. It just is. Accept it and move on
—–
So is system collapse.
I agree with you almost in total. I told you I have no intention of defending these institutions. I agree that they are based on “connections, cartels and fraud.” But I wanted to point out where you are mistaking symptoms for the disease.
—
A chicken and egg problem.
And I figured you hate playing the fool, hate being conned. Did you miss the line, “convincing the plebes that status is unimportant/unjust/evil is one way the high status maintain their position, because then no one is thinking about how to unseat them.” You’re letting yourself be taken advantage of, drinking the Kool-Aid about how intelligence and innovation will bring you wealth and success. I’m saying that’s a sucker’s bet, like thinking some girl is your one true love and will bring you everlasting bliss.
—–
I am against it because it always ends badly.. and we have reached the breaking point for this iteration of the system.
You don’t seem to be taking your fatalism to the obvious conclusion. You think the system is about to collapse, that Armageddon is coming and that there is nothing we can do to avert it. So what if it always ends badly? It’s not like your good behavior will improve the situation. Why not enjoy the party while it lasts?
—-
Nope, I believe that all approaches to stop things from coming apart involve discrediting the current system.
There are so many things you feel absolutely no shame about doing: regularly calling prostitutes, being an asshole to women who deserve it. I want you to increase that last of things you so shamelessly engage in. Why stop where you are?
——
I am not stealing peoples retirement investments, selling them false hope with worthless ‘new’ drugs, conning them through legal language, outsourcing their livelihood to make a few more bucks. I can go on..
Fair enough. I think we agree on far more than we disagree.
By the way, there is a great article I think you might be interested in. It’s called “On Cooling the Mark Out,” written 60 years ago by a psychologist Erving Goffman. It’s about the psychology of confidence games. I found it pretty eye-opening, because once you realize how con games work, you can recognize it when someone is trying to con you. The article does a good job pointing out how so many things in society are essentially con games; it’s a pretty strong red pill, so to speak, if you’re willing to let it digest a little. Over time I’ve started to see how more and more of life around me is essentially a con game or a bait and switch. It’s a great resource for skeptic like yourself.
How precisely does one instruct others to “think outside the box?”
—
You cannot teach people to think originally, only encourage those who do.
Seems that an inherent quality to thinking outside the box is first and foremost the incomprehension of a box. The minute you’re aware of the box’s walls, you are in the box. It’s like a snake eating itself.
Reminds of the “Church of Reason” from Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
You can’t teach shit.
You can trigger self-awareness at most, and that is often accidental.
—
Yep..
I’m applying to universities at this stage in my life. It seems almost that the real benefit of these “famous” universities is that other people know that you attended (applied to) them.
Also, would you say that as soon as a university becomes well-known (in advertisements and written about in the local newspaper/magazine), the count-down for the actually quality of teaching starts?